Grade-Schoolers Team Up to Spam Negative Reviews—So Big It Prompted an Official Qwen Meeting

Honestly, this one had everyone laughing—because the worlds of AI and education have just collided, and the result was unexpectedly explosive.

It all started in a rather surreal way. With final exams approaching, Alibaba’s Qwen app rolled out a major update. The intention was clearly well-meaning: a gift to parents and students alike. The new features included photo-based question search, AI-powered step-by-step explanations, and even personalized “practice-by-analogy” exercises generated automatically from a student’s mistakes.

On paper, it sounded like a dream.

But when users checked the app store reviews, chaos had erupted. The comment section split cleanly into two camps.

On one side were highly motivated parents handing out five-star reviews, calling Qwen a “free VIP private tutor” and praising how effective it was.

On the other side? A wave of furious one-star reviews—apparently from freshly dismissed elementary school students—complaining in unison: “Why does it make me do so many extra practice questions? One star!”

At first, most people assumed this was just a funny side effect of a product update. But the situation kept escalating, eventually sparking a much larger public debate: should children be using AI at all?

Even Qwen itself probably didn’t see this coming. Faced with mounting controversy, the team decided to address it head-on. A few days later, they organized a formal education forum in Beijing titled: “Should Children Use AI?” As a long-time Qwen user, I joined the event online.

To their credit, the guest lineup was impressive. The organizers brought together some of China’s most respected voices in education, cognition, and culture—people often described as those who “understand learning” and those who “understand the brain.” The diversity of perspectives set the stage for a serious discussion.

To be honest, I expected polite consensus and a few ceremonial sound bites.

Instead, the debate got real.

Looking back, it’s easy to see why this issue hit such a nerve. On the surface, it looks like kids trying to avoid hard work. But underneath, parents are wrestling with a deeper fear: if homework is solved by AI, and reasoning steps are served on a plate, will children lose the ability to think for themselves?

That question kicked off the forum’s central theme: does long-term use of AI actually make children less intelligent?

Qwen’s head of learning products introduced a striking analogy. AI, he argued, has become the fourth essential school tool—after pencils, erasers, and rulers. In the past, when children got stuck on difficult problems, parents had to wait until after work to help, often turning homework time into a battlefield. Now, AI can instantly recognize handwritten notes or blackboard photos and generate explanations in seconds.

But this convenience raises a critical concern. If children rely on AI to shortcut the process, is that still learning?

A well-known education blogger pointed out the danger of what he called “false intelligence.” Students with weak foundations can use AI to generate essays that look impressive, copy them directly, and walk away feeling brilliant—without actually learning anything. It’s like a swimming coach explaining breathing techniques from the shore. If you never get in the water, you’ll never learn to swim.

Teachers have already noticed the problem. Many have shared stories online about essays that are obviously AI-generated—too polished, too structured, too unnatural to be written by children.

Some students have taken things even further. In a new twist, tech-savvy teenagers have turned homework into a strategic arms race. If teachers use AI to grade papers, students respond with prompt manipulation during exams, trying to “hack” the grading system into awarding full marks.

Students using AI to write assignments. Teachers using AI to grade them. Everyone using AI to outsmart one another.

No wonder anxiety is rising.

But then came a completely counterintuitive perspective. A professor from Fudan University argued that the question “Will AI make children less intelligent?” is itself flawed.

Why? Because it assumes that traditional exam-oriented education actually made children smarter in the first place.

That single statement reframed the entire debate.

Historically, intelligence in school has been measured by calculation speed and memorization—precisely the skills AI excels at. If AI calculates faster and remembers more, then this old definition of “smart” is bound to be replaced. What we are seeing isn’t children becoming less capable, but intelligence being redefined in the AI era.

Another speaker compared AI to a spotlight, illuminating areas traditional education never reached. Used correctly, it compensates for weaknesses rather than replacing thinking.

This idea aligns with a broader trend in AI education: good AI doesn’t hand you answers—it guides you toward them. The best systems function like a modern Socratic tutor, leading students step by step through reasoning rather than solving problems outright. International examples already exist, and similar approaches are emerging locally.

One of the most eye-opening moments came from a student speaker, who described how learning itself has changed. Traditional education, he said, is like climbing a mountain—teachers guide you upward step by step, slowly and painfully. AI, however, can instantly place you at the summit by giving you the answer.

The real learning happens on the way back down.

Understanding how AI arrived at its conclusion, breaking down its logic, and internalizing the process—that “descending the mountain” is where knowledge becomes muscle memory. Many experts admitted they had never heard learning framed this way, and it was clear that students raised alongside AI are already developing fundamentally different thinking patterns.

Still, translating theory into reality isn’t easy.

AI is evolving so quickly that even teachers are starting to depend on it. Students have begun noticing something unsettling: exam questions themselves now carry a distinctly “machine-generated” feel. Awkward sentence structures, strange phrasing, and even classical poetry questions mistakenly attributed to modern game companies have started appearing.

At this point, AI isn’t just assisting education—it’s writing questions, grading papers, and explaining answers, often with more patience than any human could manage.

This led naturally to another uncomfortable question: if AI can do all this, what role is left for teachers? Do schools even need to exist?

Faced with this existential challenge, one outspoken professor offered a sharp rebuttal. He argued that while AI can handle “teaching knowledge,” it lacks humanity. AI has no warmth, no personality, no emotional presence. Students don’t connect with perfection—they connect with people.

Another educator reinforced this point. When students argue over grades, break down emotionally, or struggle socially, no algorithm can step in and mediate. Teachers matter because they see students as people, not data points. AI’s strength lies in reducing administrative burden so educators can focus on what truly matters: guiding growth.

As the forum wrapped up, the discussion shifted to education itself.

For generations, top teachers and elite question banks were scarce resources, tied closely to expensive school districts. AI has shattered that exclusivity by making high-quality learning tools available to everyone—for free.

Some praised this as a breakthrough for educational equality. Others warned of a new problem: standardization. If everyone can achieve high scores with AI assistance, competition doesn’t disappear—it becomes harsher.

One school principal offered a different vision. If knowledge can no longer be the main differentiator, education must expand beyond the mind to include physical endurance, emotional resilience, and real-world action. AI can write code and plan projects, but it can’t run five kilometers, experience exhaustion, or feel the satisfaction of pushing past limits.

Future education, he argued, will reward holistic, lifelong learners.

After listening to the entire forum, one conclusion stood out clearly: AI education is still an open field, full of debate and without definitive answers.

But one thing feels settled. Asking whether children should use AI is already outdated. AI is no longer optional—it’s everywhere, embedded into daily life like air itself.

The only question that matters now is how we use it.

Will AI replace our thinking, or support it?

That question isn’t just for children. It’s for parents—and for every adult navigating an AI-saturated world. Those who figure it out won’t just adapt to the future. They’ll be ready to seize it.

So what do you think? Let’s talk in the comments.