Great question. Even I came across it while I was in development process and I've tested the built-in "Study Modes" extensively, and the difference comes down to Intent Persistence.
1. Instruction Drift vs. The Gatekeeper: General-purpose LLMs are trained to be "helpful and agreeable." If a student pushes or shifts the topic, the model often "drifts"—like you mentioned, it might start correcting grammar instead of pushing the child to derive the essay's core logic. Qurio uses a secondary "Gatekeeper" agent that audits every response turn specifically to ensure the "Socratic Loop" stays on the core concept, not just surface-level fixes.
2. The Walled Garden: A general-purpose AI is an open "Ducati"—it has the entire internet's biases and infinite distractions. Qurio provides a closed-loop logic environment. It removes the ads, tracking, and the constant temptation to "just get the answer" that is always one click away in a standard bot.
3. The "Architect" UI: Unlike a standard chat, our Cognitive Process Capsules (CPCs) record the thinking journey, not just the final result. This allows parents to see the logical steps their child took, which is a feature prioritized for education rather than just production.
Ultimately, a kid uses this because it treats them like a Future Architect who needs to understand the "Why," rather than just a user who needs a "Result."
You caught me. English is not my native language, so I use an LLM to polish my thoughts and correct my grammar before posting. I want to make sure I’m explaining the technical parts of Qurio clearly, but I realize it can end up sounding a bit "robotic."
I'm a developer and a dad—the project is real, even if my grammar needs a boost! I'll try to let more of my own "unfiltered" voice through.
As far as your query regarding chatGPT, I tried its study mode to write an essay on climate control for a 10 year old kid and instead of focusing on essay, it kept insisting me to correct my grammar instead. And having a switch button to full fledged LLM right in front needs a lot of patience and dedication. I tried conveying this though by taking help of LLM. Thanks
I’m sorry you think like that. Please be assured, I’m a really dev. Not an AI. Nevertheless , my product solves a practical need and I use AI for correcting my English. Thank you.
If you read the resignation letter, they would appear to be so cryptic as to not be real warnings at all and perhaps instead the writings of someone exercising their options to go and make poems
Also, trajectory of celestial bodies can be predicted with a somewhat decent level of accuracy. Pretending societal changes can be equally predicted is borderline bad faith.
Besides, you do realize that the film is a satire, and that the comet was an analogy, right? It draws parallels with real-world science denialism around climate change, COVID-19, etc. Dismissing the opinion of an "AI" domain expert based on fairly flawed reasoning is an obvious extension of this analogy.
> Let's ignore the words of a safety researcher from one of the most prominent companies in the industry
I think "safety research" has a tendency to attract doomers. So when one of them quits while preaching doom, they are behaving par for the course. There's little new information in someone doing something that fits their type.
I haven't seen any mention or acknowledgement that the model provider is part of this loop too. Technically speaking, none of this is E2EE so you're trusting that a random employee doesn't just read your chats? There will be policies sure, but ultimately someone will try to violate them as has happened many times in the past like at social media companies for example.
While I have zero interest in defending or participating in the financialization of all things via crypto, there is a bit of nuance missing here.
BAGS is a crypto platform where relative strangers can make meme coins and nominate a recipient to receive some or all of the funds.
In both Steve Yegge and Geoffrey Huntley's cases, tokens were made for them but apparently not with their knowledge or input.
It would be the equivalent of a random stranger starting a Patreon or GoFundMe in your name, with the proceeds going to you.
Of course, whether you accept that money is a different story but I'm sure the best of us might have a hard time turning down $300,000 from people who wittingly participate in these sorts of investment platforms.
I don't immediately see how those left holding the bag could have ended up in that position unknowingly.
My parents would likely have a hard enough time figuring out how to buy crypto, let alone finding themselves rugpulled by a meme token is my point so while my immediate read is that pump and dump is bad, bad relative to who the participants are is something I'm curious to know if anyone has an answer for
If someone anonymous starts a Patreon to support your software project I'll assume that someone is you and it will take very strong evidence to change my mind.
It's so funny tho. If you post on reddit saying "my friend had a fight with his wife last night..." absolutely no one would believe it's really your friend. But somehow you say "uh so there is someone anonymous who launched a meme coin for my project..." people believe it's really someone anonymous.
This would seem to be inline with the development philosophy for clawdbot. I like the concept but I was put off by the lack of concern around security, specifically for something that interfaces with the internet
> These days I don’t read much code anymore. I watch the stream and sometimes look at key parts, but I gotta be honest - most code I don’t read.
I think it's fine for your own side projects not meant for others but Clawdbot is, to some degree, packaged for others to use it seems.
https://chatgpt.com/features/study-mode/
reply