> "students should be at a table with a book and that's it"
That's not what I meant (or yes if you take what you read literally):
What I meant was whole process that your brain goes through when you read, synthesize information, take notes, do an exercise, check answers, compare different explanations/definitions from different authors, etc. makes at least from my point of view a rich way to study a topic.
I'm not saying that technology can't help you out. When you watch for example a 3brown1blue video you are definitely putting good use of technology to aid you to understand or literally "view" a concept. That's ok and actually in many cases can be revealing. You can't get that from a book! But on the other side a book also forces you to do the hard work of thinking and maybe come up with such visualizations and ideas by your own.
Happy to be pointed as an "Amish" when it comes to studying/learning things ;) but I hope that I convinced you that what I explained has nothing of Amish but that you don't need a source of power to read a book.
> I know in our university pretty much everyone that attends exams uses chatgpt to study.
And they shouldn't be doing that. They are wrong. Students should be reading suggested bibliography and spending long hours with an open book in a table instead of being lazy and abuse a tech that is yet in its infancy when learning concepts. Studying with a chatbot. Complete madness.