Reminds me of LIGO, which injected fake results until the humans got good at handling them, then later announced that one of the results wasn't fake. Seems at first like an upside-down way to discover gravitational waves, but I think it's a pattern worth exploring in more cases.
To paraphrase Doctorow:
> This is why the TSA are some of the most water-bottle-findingest **ers, but regularly overlook firearms when a red team takes one through. Humans do not stay vigilant to signals which almost never happen.
Pls get rid of the “critical thinking app (dot) ages 10-14” thing at the top of the hero. It’s one of the most obvious signs a site was generated by an LLM. It also seems like the text on the site (and your post here) is AI-generated, which doesn’t inspire confidence.
I’m a fan of the idea behind this, though. Cool project.
Reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QAMA_Calculator - a calculator that won't reveal the precise answer until you supply an estimate (physical hardware in 2014, I think the current version is an app.) The website makes claims about the pedagogic value, but I didn't see any actual citations at https://qama.world/the-science/ just "everyone knows" kind of things... but if they had research supporting it that would probably inform your approach?
I think speed would be irrelevant, or perhaps would discourage deep engagement with the problems.
I think presenting it as AI can be wrong is not as valuable as presenting it as developing the ability to question what one is told. (e.g. Verizon Math)
indeed I agree with you however studies have shown that kids have access to interfaces to chat with an LLM from a young age, and the traction this technology is taking is increasing. Indeed verizon math seems more whole when it comes to topic variety.
This is an interesting idea, but I need more than one sample to get a feel for it. I did the example on the homepage, and then one more that it linked to, and both had extremely basic errors my kid would have no problem with (currently doing Math Academy prealgebra, approx year 9/8th grade level). I'd suggest allowing people to try more than one very basic error.
while solving a lathoa case, if you spot the error you get back an amount of points. if you score also the explanation exhibiting your understanding you gain more points.
Reminds me of LIGO, which injected fake results until the humans got good at handling them, then later announced that one of the results wasn't fake. Seems at first like an upside-down way to discover gravitational waves, but I think it's a pattern worth exploring in more cases.
To paraphrase Doctorow:
> This is why the TSA are some of the most water-bottle-findingest **ers, but regularly overlook firearms when a red team takes one through. Humans do not stay vigilant to signals which almost never happen.
Pls get rid of the “critical thinking app (dot) ages 10-14” thing at the top of the hero. It’s one of the most obvious signs a site was generated by an LLM. It also seems like the text on the site (and your post here) is AI-generated, which doesn’t inspire confidence.
I’m a fan of the idea behind this, though. Cool project.
Reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QAMA_Calculator - a calculator that won't reveal the precise answer until you supply an estimate (physical hardware in 2014, I think the current version is an app.) The website makes claims about the pedagogic value, but I didn't see any actual citations at https://qama.world/the-science/ just "everyone knows" kind of things... but if they had research supporting it that would probably inform your approach?
I think speed would be irrelevant, or perhaps would discourage deep engagement with the problems.
I think presenting it as AI can be wrong is not as valuable as presenting it as developing the ability to question what one is told. (e.g. Verizon Math)
indeed I agree with you however studies have shown that kids have access to interfaces to chat with an LLM from a young age, and the traction this technology is taking is increasing. Indeed verizon math seems more whole when it comes to topic variety.
This is an interesting idea, but I need more than one sample to get a feel for it. I did the example on the homepage, and then one more that it linked to, and both had extremely basic errors my kid would have no problem with (currently doing Math Academy prealgebra, approx year 9/8th grade level). I'd suggest allowing people to try more than one very basic error.
> if she finds an error to gain more XP
What does this mean?
while solving a lathoa case, if you spot the error you get back an amount of points. if you score also the explanation exhibiting your understanding you gain more points.
It helps us practice critical thinking. What it doesn’t do is help us practice knowing WHEN to use critical thinking.
Easy, all the damn time.
https://xkcd.com/309/
kek..
interesting perspective...when and how much also is a skill someone should have.