> Pretty much nothing else can get picked by AI if you start a new project.
You can pick literally almost anything, and current models will be able to write it. I don't know how you arrived at that statement.
131 karma · joined May 23, 2022
You can pick literally almost anything, and current models will be able to write it. I don't know how you arrived at that statement.
With traditional Q/A-style spaced repetition, I feel like accumulating a long list of isolated facts sometimes (I know, you can remedy this a bit by also quizzing connections, context, but I feel like the general tendency still remains).
There is also one that is called "tody" that we didn't try out. Both require a small subscription fee though, which I really dislike. I wish I had found a nice open source alternative. Besides the subscription fee (which was like 18€/year for us both), I have no complaints yet about the app.
These days I often wonder if I should just switch to FSRS [1], which Anki also switched to. It delivers better results. However, I am hesitating, since I understand SM-2, and it is easy to read the code while FSRS is complex and feels kinda black-boxy, which wouldn't feel right to me.
A quick note to the implementation above: I wonder if having that many answer options is worth it. It probably increases the cognitive effort needed for grading and I wonder if the increased precision in some cases is worth that. But who knows?
I guess math is uniquely suited for this kind of strategy, but would you say it translates to learning concepts in other domains too?
I was thinking about whether something like "what is X?" -> "What field is X used in?", which seems to form a hierarchy for me, would benefit of this technique? Personally, I found that for something like the preceding example, I could answer the second question without thinking about what X is at all, just by rote memorization of the wording. Happened to me quite a lot when I was using Anki. And actually, I guess this is even acceptable in some way, since the question is not about activating "what X is", but "what X is used in". What I am trying to express: I feel like I would not necessarily activate a parent concept by answering a child concept, and I think that might be true for a lot of questions outside math problems, although they form a hierarchy. So I am wondering what you think about the general applicability of this technique...
Please don't take all of this questioning wrong, I think you are doing pretty cool stuff, and I am grateful for everyone trying to push the boundaries of current SRS approaches :-)!
A -> B -> C (C encompasses B, B encompasses A, keeping the notation from the article).
As I understand it, the article advocates for showing C first, then you can assume that you also know B and A to at least some part, and save yourself the repetitions for these.
Intuitively, I would have guessed the opposite approach to be the best: Show A first, suspend B until A is learned (by some measure), then show B, etc.
That means no repetitions to skip, but also you get less failures (and thus additional repetitions) that occur as follows: you are shown C, but don't know B anymore, and thus cannot answer and have to repeat C.
If you are shown C before B, you kinda make C less atomic (you might have to actively recall both, B and C to answer it), showing B before C makes C more atomic, as you will have B more mentally present/internalized and can focus on what C adds to B.