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.
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.
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.
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)
What does this mean?