Welcome to Billion Dollar Energy. I went from a farm town in Canada to a Silicon Valley insider and venture capitalist. I share secrets and insights to help you build wealth, legacy, and freedom.
Forwarded this email? Join 55,000+ other professionals every Wednesday.
Billion Dollar Energy is brought to you by:
As a special thank you to billion dollar energy subscribers, get three months of Wispr Flow free from me today!
It's back to school season, and for the first time, roughly 600,000 New York City public school students are walking into classrooms where generative AI is, officially, gone.
Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Schools Chancellor announced a one-year moratorium on student-facing generative AI for pre-K through eighth grade, the broadest ban of its kind in the country. Mamdani's reasoning was simple: "Children need teachers and human connection in order to learn and grow."
We already have the data on what happens when schools block AI, and it isn't that kids stop using it.
What the ban is exactly.
NYC is discontinuing or disabling the AI components of dozens of previously approved classroom programs across every elementary and middle school in the district. Teachers can still use AI to build lesson plans. What's gone is student-facing generative AI: no chatbots doing the assignment, no AI grading student work, no AI handling what the city calls "crisis management." High schoolers get the opposite treatment, twice-yearly AI literacy classes and a pilot program that introduces a handful of platforms under teacher supervision.
Even the people who want kids protected from AI think this rollout moved too fast. Josh Golin, who runs the children's advocacy group Fairplay, told reporters he would have preferred a longer moratorium and more runway between the announcement and the first day of school.
Bans don’t really work.
Common Sense Media's newest Census on AI use by tweens and teens found that among teens who use AI for schoolwork, 44% have already had an AI tool blocked on a school network or device. Of those kids, 59% just switched to a personal device to keep going.
A pre-K through eighth grade policy has a better shot than a high school one, since younger kids are less likely to route around a rule with their own phone. But the obvious truth is, a school AI ban isn't "AI is gone from these kids' lives." It's "AI is gone from the building and from parental view.”
The case for the ban is strong…
Pew Research found that 54% of US teens have now used a chatbot for schoolwork, up from 26% a year earlier. Common Sense's data on what that's actually doing to kids worries me more than social media. 38% of teen AI users say having it available leads them to generate fewer of their own ideas, and 39% say they feel like they're missing out on learning when they use it to finish assignments.
Like with any tech, it gets even darker. Character.AI and Google are facing multiple lawsuits alleging the product contributed to serious harm in teenage users, and the FTC opened a formal inquiry into how generative AI companies protect minors. If you're a school district and your student-facing AI tool might, in the worst case, be the thing handling a kid's mental health crisis instead of a human being, "we're pulling it for a year while we figure this out" is not an unreasonable position. It's arguably the responsible one.
…but the case against the ban is just as strong, and it’s an equity argument.
The kids this ban protects from over-reliance are the same kids who'll show up to a job market in 2035 having had zero structured, supervised practice with the tool their competition has been trained on since third grade. Some critics have already made this point: a blanket ban denies kids the chance to build real AI literacy in a supervised setting, and pushes that education into whichever home has a parent who can teach it, or doesn't.
Meanwhile, states aren't waiting to find out which side is right. Hawaii now requires every junior and senior to complete a six-week AI literacy course before graduating, funded by a $5 million state grant for teacher training. California's education department issued statewide AI guidance in January and a model policy in July, covering everything from vendor evaluation to AI-assisted grading. Neither state banned the technology. Both decided the job was to teach kids to use it well instead of hoping they wouldn't encounter it.
China picked a completely different lane.
While NYC pulls AI out of elementary classrooms, China's Ministry of Education is doing the opposite at national scale. Its AI Plus Education Action Plan, launched this spring, requires every elementary and middle school to offer AI coursework starting this academic year, building toward a K-through-university AI education system by 2030. Primary students learn through robotics and basic programming. Secondary students move into data literacy, model training fundamentals, and AI ethics. The ministry has already designated 184 schools as national AI education bases and is piloting age-appropriate AI textbooks in another 100 this fall.
There's no ambiguity in China's bet here. It's building the pipeline to make sure its next generation of engineers grew up fluent in it.
Singapore split the difference, and it might be the most interesting model of the three.
Singapore's Ministry of Education is running an explicitly age-gated approach under its EdTech Masterplan. Lower primary students get no AI tools at all, by design, while MOE protects the foundational skills those years are supposed to build. Students in primary four through six get access to education-specific AI tools, but only under teacher supervision. Education Minister Desmond Lee confirmed in February that MOE is formally studying whether AI over-reliance is eroding core thinking skills, even as the ministry rolls out AI copilots to cut teacher workload.
Singapore's framing is the cleanest one I've seen anywhere in this debate: kids should learn about AI, learn to use it, learn with it, and eventually learn beyond it, in that order, at an age-appropriate pace. NYC's policy, for now, is a pause button.
My take on this is evolving.
The ban is the easy decision. A one-year moratorium buys a school district time to build actual policy without admitting it doesn't have one yet, and given the chatbot lawsuits alone, I don't blame NYC for taking the pause. But a pause is not a plan, and it expires in a year whether or not anyone's built what comes after it.
The districts and countries that come out ahead here won't be the ones that banned AI the longest or adopted it the fastest. They'll be the ones that treated it like a skill worth teaching deliberately, the way Singapore is trying to, instead of either handing it to a nine-year-old unsupervised or locking it in a closet until high school. My son Roman is still years from a homework assignment, but I already know which of those two mistakes worries me more.
Hit reply and tell me: if you had a kid in third grade right now, would you want their school to ban AI, or teach it? I read every single response.
Jenny
P.S. If your district hasn't published an actual AI policy yet, and most haven't, it’s a good opportunity to get involved and advocate for your children, regardless of where you land.
Shared this email? Subscribe here.