136 karma · joined May 16, 2015
1. It will take much longer to understand the output of the machine that it takes to prompt and create it. 2. The only? best? one? way to /verify/ that you /in fact/ understand the output of the machine is to explain it to someone else.
So there will be a machine generating koans which need to be meditated upon and discussed with human social back-pressure validating understanding. I think this could be much more cooperative and at a minimum this will be a way different math social construct.
Imagine how quickly your meetings could get resolved if you had teams submit prompts / contexts, had a clear, documented set of overarching objectives, etc.?
- I think the other mistake I see here is trying to over-engineer a deterministic learner path instead of giving the AI more free reign on best next interaction and a set of goals it needs to accomplish through the session; it can feel more responsive and free-form that way from the learner's POV. - If you had voice here you could also make the screen optional. In my experience typing out long answers to questions can take a while too - so a voice mode might be helpful for learners. It would also be cool if people could take a 'photo of their work' for e.g. math equations done by hand. - To the earlier point on family end-market, an interesting idea is modeling bloomy - have some grown-up oriented courses so you can learn with / side-by-side with your child? Just an idea.
- It looks like you are gating family access to K-3 for now and I think that's right. I wouldn't really be comfortable giving my first-grader a live chatbot. Maybe I would think about whether there are other non-persona modalities that could still be self-directed (i.e. I am uncomfortable with a chatbot interface on this for a six year old but gamified flash cards with options could be different).
- I think the other issue is with motivation. I have various duct-tape versions of these types of agents and the thing about it is if you're doing the learning right it can be HARD. So I would think about using motivational interviewing or other techniques to help keep the user coming back and motivated.
- I would really think about the assessments here too. Many people are worried about LLMs ruining student evaluations, but if you could bake in reliable, flexible exams that gauge user progress (even for something like a "Did you read this" quiz) I would bet teachers would like it. There is likely so much you could do on student progress observability and e.g. structuring team-based projects or having targeted student working groups to hash out hard concepts in a targeted way, etc.
This is such an interesting market and use case too because the educational system might be very structurally set up to the current pedagogical staffing model (think about the incentives for teacher's unions and administrators). If you think it will be hard to change that system as quickly as you want I would also try to have an offering direct to families / home-schoolers. I think there is also a cottage industry of tutors that might benefit. Maybe partnering with the textbook publishers? I'm sure there are some "Teach your kids better" influencers that would get you into some feeds?
What I am exploring is another step to the classic 'research / plan / implement' pattern: 'research / plan / LEARN / implement' where LEARN involves the human doing AI tutoring sessions to ensure a deep understanding the concepts etc. that the LLM is planning to implement so you can refine / iterate on plans and direct the LLM in ever more effective ways. My idea is that this then compounds your human capital and reduces the occurance of 'sounds smart, doesn't work' pattern.
Error: Error during compaction: API Error: Claude Code is unable to respond to this request, which appears to violate our Usage Policy (https://www.anthropic.com/legal/aup).
Guys please be serious
It will be important for Apple to have good enough, cheap local LLM models that run on-device.
If the barrier to performance shifts from fundamental model capability to context collection and management I would expect to see folks focused on that problem continuing to drive open-weight LLM model development in some shape or form.
The idea of capable local models could be a huge unlock here if they are able to do the bottom-up context collection research / tagging / etc. at scale.
I think the key is to combine human and agent task tracking in one pane of glass.
I am also hoping / trying to put Claude code on top of a personal zettlekasten to automate more of my “personal life” tasks and get more stuff done for me. Haven’t gotten it really singing yet but I think that could also be really cool.
Blessed vs “bless-ed” for example
Camera can be said cam-ra or cam-er-a for example.
This isn't study mode, it's a different AI tutor, but:
"The median learning gains for students, relative to the pre-test baseline (M = 2.75, N = 316), in the AI-tutored group were over double those for students in the in-class active learning group."
The thing I think some enterprise customers are worried about in this space is that in many jurisdictions you legally need to disclose recording - having a bot join the call can do that disclosure - but users hate the bot and it takes up too much visibility on many of these calls.
Would love to learn more about your approach there
My takeaway is scaling in the enterprise is about making implicit information explicit.
From what I have seen most of these tools need to do more user research on how powerpoint slides actually look like in practice.
There's a lot of "you're doing it wrong, show don't tell, just keep the basics on the slide" but the people that use powerpoint to make $$$ make incredibly dense powerpoint materials that serve as reference documents, not presentation guides (i.e. they are intended as leave-behind documents that people can read in advance)
Presentations are also quite hard because:
1. It must "compile to" Powerpoint (it must compile to powerpoint because your end users will want to make direct edits and those end users will NOT be comfortable in markdown and in general will be very averse to change) 2. Powerpoint has no layout engine 3. Powerpoint presentations are in fact a beautiful medium in which VISUAL LAYOUT HAS SEMANTIC MEANING (powerpoint is like medieval art where larger is more important)
If anyone wants to help me build an engine that can get an LLM to ACTUALLY make powerpoints please let me know. I am sure this is a lot harder than you think it is.