Duolingo will replace contract workers with AI

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Perceived Educational Quality of Duolingo

  • Many argue Duolingo was never about “high-quality” language education but about accessibility and gamification (streaks, leaderboards, gems, upsells).
  • Common criticism: it conditions users to “play Duolingo” rather than learn to converse; success feels like winning a game, not acquiring functional language.
  • Others defend it as effective for beginners: helps with basic vocab, spelling, gender, A1–A2 level competence, and—crucially—daily practice.
  • Several users report Duolingo as a valuable springboard that got them started and motivated, but not sufficient for fluency; serious learners move to textbooks, Anki, live courses, or other apps.

Gamification, Enshittification, and Pricing

  • Strong dislike for heavy gamification and dark patterns, even for paying users: constant upsells, AI call promos, and loss of earlier, more flexible course structures.
  • Some long-time users say the product used to feel innovative and learner-focused, but has become a monetized “time-wasting casino app.”
  • Complaints that the free tier is now barely usable and subscriptions are “insanely expensive” relative to perceived value.

Reaction to “AI-First” and Worker Replacement

  • Many see “AI-first” and replacing contractors as primarily a cost-cutting and investor-pleasing move, not an educational or learner-centric one.
  • Internal policy screenshots (mandated AI use, higher productivity expectations) alarm engineers: they suggest naive understanding of LLMs and use of AI as a pretext to squeeze more work or justify layoffs.
  • Some commenters explicitly cancel subscriptions or uninstall the app in response; others argue using tools to do “more with less” is the natural progression of technology.

Effectiveness and Risks of AI-Generated Content

  • Skepticism that mass AI content can maintain or improve quality in such a nuanced domain as language teaching, especially when learners cannot easily spot errors.
  • Duolingo’s claim that manual content creation “doesn’t scale” is questioned; lesson material is seen as largely an upfront investment where quality matters more than sheer volume.
  • Several users feel the app already “reads like AI output,” with odd or pointless sentences, and report recent changes (faster audio, synthetic voices) that feel machine-generated.

Alternatives and Broader Context

  • Alternatives mentioned include Anki-based workflows, Language Transfer, real classes, language exchanges, and FOSS projects like LibreLingo.
  • Some predict AI-native tutoring (LLM + spaced repetition + voice conversation) will soon outclass Duolingo’s current model, making this pivot existential rather than optional.
  • Others frame AI mandates as part of a wider pattern: productivity gains privatized, jobs and quality degraded, with AI used as rhetorical cover.