Not all cases are wrong though. One in five is correct and the "Looks correct" scores also and gets XP. So it does practise knowing when not to doubt..a little..
"Critical thinking" has always seemed like a strange concept to me. Its definitions tend to bundle every desirable cognitive habit together until the term basically means "thinking correctly".
Indeed, there are some strange definitions of critical thinking out there which boil down to "good thinking." My definition is specific: thinking about thinking with the aim of not getting fooled. In other words, when you specifically analyze your own thinking or other people's thinking for the presence of significant errors, you are doing critical thinking.
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)
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.
Thanks! You may sign up and get on the free plan for three cases per day (only the obvious level). You can subscribe to any plan and get a 7 day free trial of that plan also. cancel any time within the trial period.
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?
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.
I've come around. I think there's really nothing wrong with guiding AI to develop a speculative, experimental, personal project. You're going to see rough edges, but guess what? You see rough edges when you write your own code, too. The process of fixing them is the same process either way: see and adjust.
Reading an AI generated text and discovering that is generated is a skill. A skill that the pedagogical system from any country should promote. Lathoa does not teach, but it is a fun way to work out your critical thinking skill.
> 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.
If you’ve made something with an LLM, it should be obvious you did (preferably with an outright admission, though, not but leaving artefacts for people to deduce from) and not try to hide it.
Either you believe building with LLMs is OK or you don’t. If you do think it’s OK, then own up to it. If you don’t think it’s OK, don’t do it.
You are in a violation of GDPR because you don't show "allow all" and "decline all" buttons equally. I won't look up the exact regulation quote, but it is somewhere there.
Also, why do you need to store personal information of the users in the first place? A SAAS operator can handle user payments just fine without any extra data stored to require an additional consent, because storing payment status doesn't require it by law.
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.
This is why not all cases are wrong. Too few of those and kids will learn to always claim an error; too many and they will stop looking. There is a balance..
I did not understand "today's case" right away. I thought you were supposed to answer which of the three cards was wrong. Didn't realize it was showing a series of steps the student worked through. As someone else pointed out, khan does have questions like this
yes yes these three cards are steps of one one solution, top to bottom; similarly to a way of thought. Some may sound unnecessary or silly, but that is up to the kid's judgement. Khan has these too, but Lathoa has a different presentation style.
On the full problem solving screen, the little robot mascot bounces up and down. However, the shadow moves along with the robot. It looks a bit odd and I think it might work better anyways if the shadow stays in place and shrinks/grows according to the robots bouncing.Other than that, seems really well put together.
This should be good training. Because the kids will encounter many, many more LLMs that are wrong on purpose, for the sake of propaganda and fraud. Teaching them early on that they can’t trust the machines is a net positive.
I share the same viewpoint. Thank you. The education systems will change, and have been constantly changing. Lathoa tries to keep an equilibrium here, or at least keep something alive..our brain..
This is a great idea! The one thing I question is the speed requirement. As a critical thinking educator, I usually try to teach kids to slow down and think about things more carefully. People have a tendency to make fast decisions, relying on heuristics and jumping to conclusions. This can be useful in some situations such as emergencies but can be detrimental when time is available and accuracy is required.
48 comments
[ 0.27 ms ] story [ 19.2 ms ] threadWhat does this mean?
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)
I’m a fan of the idea behind this, though. Cool project.
If you’ve made something with an LLM, it should be obvious you did (preferably with an outright admission, though, not but leaving artefacts for people to deduce from) and not try to hide it.
Either you believe building with LLMs is OK or you don’t. If you do think it’s OK, then own up to it. If you don’t think it’s OK, don’t do it.
Also, why do you need to store personal information of the users in the first place? A SAAS operator can handle user payments just fine without any extra data stored to require an additional consent, because storing payment status doesn't require it by law.
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.
https://learningfocused.com/blogs/lesson-planning/unlocking-...
That's not a bug, it's a feature. Trust in the system would be severely misplaced.