HN

Comments (93)

• Menu

  closetkantian
  So, professional educator here, with fifteen years of high school teaching experience. If the sample passages and questions on the front page accurately reflect what's inside this, I would not let my kids go anywhere near it.You've chosen to use the most generic AI-generated prose, when you could have licensed or hired writers to craft thoughtful, rich passages. I doubt you've consulted any serious standardized test item writers in the construction of what is essentially a standardized test item-based curriculum. This is the pedagogical equivalent of a Lunchable--mass produced, wrapped in plastic, and basically nutrition-free.
• Menu

  theodorewiles
  I am here to tell you HELL YES and TAKE MY MONEY. I am such a fan of the idea of using AI to help give personalized and structured AI lessons in the hands of students and let them cook!- 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?
• makeyouragent
  One metric I would add is mastery under decreasing assistance. A student who answers correctly after three increasingly specific hints has shown something useful, but it is not the same evidence as solving a fresh version unaided. If both outcomes update the skill score equally, the personalized path can advance the student too early.For each attempt, I would keep the skill, item variant, number and specificity of hints, revisions, elapsed time, and whether the final reasoning came from the student. Advancement could require an unaided success on a new item plus a delayed check later in the session or on another day. The tutor's own explanation should never count as evidence that the learner mastered the step it just supplied.This also gives teachers and families a more useful explanation than a single mastery percentage. “Can solve independently, but does not retain it after a day” and “can solve with one conceptual hint” point to different next lessons. That distinction seems especially important when the chat interface is both teaching the skill and measuring it.
• rhaynes
  Congrats on the launch! I'm curious if you're familiar with ED Hirsch's work and if so how you see a "core knowledge" curriculum fitting into AI-enabled tutoring. Your landing page suggests you might be falling into traditional anti-patterns for strengthening reading skills like "finding the main idea" and "close reading" of the text (your ai tutor animation instructs a student to look closely for the answer). These patterns are commonly used in American education and have largely been discredited. They persist due to outdated learning theory taught in American educational schools and are likely responsible for our falling reading scores. I'm bringing this up because my hope is that any ed tech tool regardless of whether it uses AI would start with the right foundational theory.
• Menu

  ghm2199
  First of all congrats on the launch.I worked at an edtech startup with adaptive learning platforms in previous decades. One thing that is always difficult to surmount was that at the under K12 level were:1. B2b it was hard to land large contracts(like getting an entire public school district to jump from large publishers like HMH or Wiley) because it turned out that the teachers themselves did not care about adaptivity when they had a thousand other things to worry about. But teachers are not the ones that make the deals. It's the school district board and The reps at large publishing just said we are also adaptive and no one would care about how you differentiated. Teachers and students really aren't the lot you have to convince in a b2b deal do you :)?2. If you want the b2c route then the customer acquisition cost was way too high because again like to get teachers and students to actually adopt this to help them was really a hard sell, especially when the public school system has teachers that are so overburdened with other stuff.I see that you mentioned charter schools for your pilot, which are not exactly public schools but I dunno of they come with the same set of challenges, but I wonder are these above two challenges are Also something you have had to face while scaling your product?
• Menu

  gurjeet
  I'm quite surprised by the difference in HN users' (quite positive) reaction to this product compared to quite negative reactions to Ello, posted here a few days ago. Is there a substantial difference in teaching methodology, or other factor that makes Ello unpalatable?https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48852199
• Menu

  vessenes
  Alex, thanks for building this. I imagine it will help many children!Couple comments on this being 'screen' oriented, which are as you say endemic in schools and terrible.There's a fair amount of research that paper reading and handling and writing gets significantly higher retention than screen reading. Most especially physically writing notes, but generally comprehension is just higher for paper. Interestingly e-ink is in the middle between screens and paper.VLMs offer the interesting possibility of 'looking over the shoulder' of students as they work examples and problems by hand through a camera. It's a harder lift, and it's more expensive, but it might find much higher buy-in to think about a combo book / workbook / AI tutor business model, not least because if you talk to almost any parent or teacher they will tell you that they are extremely worried about genz/alpha kids' abilities to focus, read with attention for longer periods of time or handwrite.Many of the exercises can be evaluated through a VLM pretty much as easily as in a chat window -- more expensive inference, but possibly a much better world.A middle ground here might be experimenting with something like a remarkable tablet - it's relatively easy to vibe code a responsive eink page right now, and you could do away with the camera side. I guess I'd think of pairing it with a phone app to talk that could hook up to the remarkable.My pet theory on handwriting notes and why they're so much better than typing or just listening - if not in shorthand, they are too slow to capture lectures word for word, and thus force a first summarization/categorization step, meaning stuff has to literally go in to short term memory then get pulled out and processed; this just has to be better than typing in a sort of fast typing haze and trying to read them later. It's also the reason my college notebooks have things like (WTF?? <---) next to notes -- I was trying to synthesize and couldn't in the moment. In addition to all this, I understand brain scans show quite a high percentage of the brain gets involved when drawing/handwriting notes -- you have micro and macro muscle movements plus all the cognitive and visual tasks together.At any rate, it will be a great service to learners to have a quality AI tutor, and I'd pitch you on looking seriously at e-ink or paper modalities if you want to help students learn even better and faster. The tech is SUUUPER close right now, or even could be there with a little willpower.
• Menu

  orsenthil
  For education, isn't the problem we are trying to solve the one with motivation, values and emotional handling? The tools, play a part, but it is engulfed by the real problem mentioned before. How are you going to deal with it?
• Menu

  F7F7F7
  Congrats man. I've been in edtech for the last 15 years. I was working on something similar (socratic method, 1:1 LLM <-> student, skills based) but joined a company and had to shelve it due to a non-compete.You've picked one hell of a time to enter the K12 market. 1:1 device backlash, AI tool scrutiny hightening, teacher exhaustion, no recovery in sight for the recent funding cliff.Your pilot model is the way to go. My favorite tools all grew out of that model. Stay patient, listen to the early users, encourage them to spread the word. Dont' be above grinding it out at a table at some of the smaller regional educaitonal confreneces.Sounds like you're already doing this but take IXL head on. They are ripe for the picking.Good luck!
• joeguilmette
  I want this exact thing, but I dont want the learning to take place on a screen or device. I want the AI in the background, the tool for the parent and teacher to use to drive the child’s curriculum. This seems trivially easy- printers are cheap.
• Menu

  scoriiu
  curious how the tutor handles a kid who's confidently wrong. from the description the ladder kicks in at the first sign of struggle, which sounds like it's built to prevent mistakes rather than use them. kapur's productive failure work points the other way, students who commit to a wrong approach and then get shown exactly where it breaks tend to keep the concept. the ones who got steered away before making the mistake don't.does bloomybot ever just let a wrong approach play out and do the postmortem after? also when a struggling student gets rerouted to an easier skill, can you tell that apart in your data from one who was thirty seconds away from the useful kind of failure? the summit gate tells you they arrived. it doesn't tell you whether the help in the middle did the teaching.
• tmpz22
  Move fast and break things.
• yizhexu
  Congradulations to the launch! When will lower grade come out? And can you speak more about how you determine what "skills" are relevant to teach?
• Menu

  383toast
  Great idea and execution but the design language seems like general llm-generated tailwind. I think you guys are missing a huge opportunity to make the design reinforce the product positioning.
• Menu

  dprkh
  What is your approach to evaluating LLM outputs?
• fuddle
  I think product demo walk through would be very helpful on the home page.
• Menu

  JimsonYang
  Tell us about the test scores increased? Did you find similar results on the PSAT?If your metrics are good, increasing test scores is the thing thats 100% going yo get schools on board
• anon
  undefined
• ChaitanyaSai
  Congratulations on the launch!How do you solve for "meaning?" Is there some implicit expectation that kids arrive with motivation to discover meaning, or some extrinsic rewards?As AI essentially commoditizes the mechanical aspects of learning, this is the question we find ourselves asking.I would like to share our journey running a microschool (where our kids go, along with 40 others now) and how we use AI and what we think about its role.Some useful context, because this really has informed our approach. I am an engineer turned neuroscientist and the co-author of a popular nonfiction book on the mind (and I share this here because the hard effortful self-driven work of crafting this book taught me more about the mind than anything else in my PhD or later). This work, done during the pandemic when learning was coming online, was what pushed us into setting up the school and gave us the courage to work on it from first principles and not rely on any off-the-shelf alternative pedagogy (montessori, waldorf etc). We looked at (and continue to work on) the full-stack of philosophy, pedagogy, process, practice. So the "what should they learn" is also met with "why should they learn this" and also "how should they be learning this"The *single biggest* learning for us, which we are now able to articulate clearly, is that schools are set up to fail because there is a well-intentioned but misguided focus on measurement (what are they learning). This gravitational pull results in a focus on mechanics (the most easily measurable thing; long division, periodic tables). This results in a narrow focus on concepts (what David Perkins terms elementitis). Most importantly, what gets left out is meaning. Why should I care about this? With a well-intentioned curriculum and an administration pipette we basically leach out agency and meaning.So we try to solve for meaning. Our biggest worry with AI is that it focuses entirely on mechanics, with very little meaning. Adults and kids are learning to discount AI-content as automated and inauthentic. We derive meaning from connection. AI can help with the mechanics, but only when meaning has been established. Without this clear-eyed understanding and buy-in we basically have chromebooks all over again, which flattened learning to 2D screens and accomplished nothing (if you look at literacy numeracy scores)Chatbots are great if you start with meaning and motivation. I already care about the why, so I will socratically find my way to the how and what. But if we do not care about it, which really is the biggest malaise (why should a child who has not yet explored the world or literature they like care about foreshadowing or plot mountains?) Sure, the AI could make it easier, but the kids still need to care?Wrote about our meaning > motivation > mechanics > measurement revelation and the usual unfortunate inversion here https://blog.comini.in/p/schooling-has-a-meaning-crisis-para...We need many more people approaching education with ideas and experiments, so thank you and good luck!
• Menu

  verdverm
  Childhood psychologists are warning about giving Ai to children, very similar to social media and generally screen time.How does this factor into your business?
• Menu

  Onavo
  Will ChatGPT dream of Bloom's 2 Sigma problem?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom%27s_2_sigma_problem
• Menu

  cynicalpeace
  The fastest, most surefire way to nuke your child's brain is to give them a screen.There is certainly room for software to design a curriculum for the parent or teacher to use. We have tried (and failed) to find such a thing for our homeschool curriculum.But giving the kid a screen? If you're even a midge honest with yourself, a screen will de-educate your child, leading to the opposite of the intended consequence.
• Menu

  motoxpro
  Happy that this is being tried. I find it weird, sad, unfortunate, etc. that everyone in tech thinks about scientific discovery and drug discovery as AIs boon to society over education.Every quality of life metric (life expectancy, income, etc) goes up with better education. I guess it’s because most people in tech grew up in neighborhoods with nice schools and went to college so they don’t think about it.Anyway, great luck.
• connerpro
  [dead]
• Chemio_AI
  This strongly resonates with what we are building at ChemioAI [1], although we have deliberately started with a narrower audience: college students taking Organic Chemistry I and II.We are also approaching Bloom’s 2-sigma challenge as the design goal. The aim is not another chatbot that gives away answers, but a patient, Socratic coach operating within a structured system of diagnosis, guided practice, feedback, productive struggle, and independent mastery.One reason we chose college O-Chem rather than K–12 is precisely the concern raised throughout this thread about screen time and introducing conversational AI too early. Organic Chemistry is a notoriously difficult gateway course taken by older students who are already studying digitally. It gives us a more bounded, age-appropriate environment in which to test whether AI can strengthen effortful learning rather than replace thinking.Your separation of the tutor from the underlying curriculum and mastery system is especially important. We have reached a similar conclusion: AI can ask better questions, provide patient scaffolding, and adapt how concepts are explained, but it should not independently define the curriculum, determine mastery, or become the source of truth. We therefore keep curriculum, pedagogical policy, mastery decisions, and safety controls in a deterministic orchestration layer outside the model.Congratulations on the launch. It is encouraging to see others pursuing the same underlying educational ambition from a different starting point.[1] chemio.ai
• anon
  undefined
• Menu

  _doctor_love
  > What evidence or product behavior would you need to trust something like this with a student?I would need the product to not exist. I don't want this anywhere near a child. I want humans instructing humans, teaching empathy, connection, and - most importantly - learning to learn.Anything short of that is just building Brave New World. Electroshock the kids if they reach for forbidden knowledge.I'm sorry to be so negative since I'm sure you worked hard on this but I find all products in this category to be 100% reprehensible."Computer-assisted learning. What an insult, to have the computer teach the human."- Russ Ackoff
• Menu

  Recursivedude
  There's a place for AI to help people, but given there's no shortage of humans it's difficult to see why we are so egar to replace them. The constant affirming nature of AI coupled with the restrictive nature of the safety layer makes AI both mentally dangerous and politically dangerous.