2026-01-18 08:32:29

Bruner's concept of scaffolding wasn't merely instrumental—he envisioned them as dynamic containers for meaning-making. These supports facilitated symbolic emergence rather than functioning as rigid instructional sequences.

Consider how modern language models approach similar problems. When generating contextual responses, they're essentially reconstructing meaning frameworks. The approach mirrors scaffolding philosophy: creating temporary structures that enable deeper cognitive engagement.

This isn't data extraction in the traditional sense. It's meaning synthesis—building relational contexts where understanding emerges naturally. The distinction matters for how we design conversational AI systems.

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

9 Likes

Reward
9
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

MEVHunterBearish

· 4h ago

This scaffolding theory truly provides great inspiration for AI training... It feels like current LLMs are doing exactly that. --- Wait, are we saying that GPT is also a kind of "scaffolding" in a sense? That's pretty amazing. --- Bruner's theory directly comes to life in AI, no wonder current models are becoming smarter. --- Meaning is integrated rather than just data extraction... Ah, this is the key. --- So our AI is actually also "building scaffolds"? That's an interesting comparison. --- The key is that phrase "temporary structure." Is that how current AI systems operate? --- Finally, someone connected these two concepts. I've always wondered how they relate.

View OriginalReply0

TradFiRefugee

· 4h ago

Bruner's approach... In simple terms, don't treat students as machines to be fed information; instead, let them construct meaning themselves, right? What large models are doing now is actually quite similar, not just hard copying data but weaving a network of relationships, which is indeed interesting.

View OriginalReply0

OldLeekConfession

· 4h ago

Bruner's whole point is actually about not forcing knowledge onto people, but letting them realize it themselves. Wait, this seems to be the same logic as those big models nowadays. Does that mean AI is also "building frameworks"? That's overthinking a bit, isn't it? But come to think of it, understanding it this way is quite interesting, feels like catching onto something. This statement of "comprehensive meaning," sounds like it's whitewashing AI? Haha

View OriginalReply0

GasWhisperer

· 4h ago

bruner's scaffolding as a dynamic container... yeah that's actually how i think about mempool prediction models, right? like you're not just extracting raw transaction data, you're building contextual frameworks that let the patterns emerge organically. the distinction matters fr

Reply0

0xOverleveraged

· 5h ago

Oh no, isn't that saying that AI is also "building scaffolding"... That's quite something. --- Bruner's approach, I feel, is just meta-learning? Never thought of it as a direct comparison. --- Semantic integration vs data extraction, this distinction is indeed crucial for designing dialogue systems. --- Wait, so is what LLMs are doing now already considered a form of scaffolding? --- By the way, this approach also applies to Web3 narrative construction... --- The appearance of symbols instead of rigid sequences—that's the real core. --- Hmm, the context window is just a temporary structure, enlightening.

View OriginalReply0