Hey everyone! I really like how websites like Brilliant try to teach in an interactive way. But it’s like $160 (or more depending on the region) a year so I’ve been making a free one.
It’s called OpenAha. right now there’s 140+ courses and 1000+ lessons in math, physics and chemistry. no account or ads.
A few to try if you only have a minute:
- untangle a graph: https://openaha.org/courses/graphs/planar/?step=1
- draw the house in one stroke: https://openaha.org/courses/graphs/konigsberg/?step=3
- program a little robot: https://openaha.org/courses/coding/sequence/?step=6
- Two pendulums passing energy back and forth: https://openaha.org/courses/waves/coupled/?step=3
This project is mostly implemented with claude: I planned every course, then wrote the lessons with AI. so far only about one third of the pages have been carefully reviewed by a person. That’s why I’d really like people to poke at it. If a lesson is confusing or sth’s wrong, make a PR or hit the flag button in the lessons. Also feel free to contribute on github to make this even better.
code: https://github.com/open-aha/open-aha.github.io
Edit, to clear something up: OpenAha isn’t affiliated with Brilliant and doesn’t use any of their content. I don’t even have a Brilliant account. Brilliant just uses the style of learning I liked (try things first, explanation after). every lesson was written for this project, and we’re improving it as an open source community.
And yes it’s not finished, there will be mistakes. That’s what the flag button on every step is for, every report gets fixed in public on github
requiring a github account to contribute is a major friction point; i highly recommend that you build something to allow people to give you feedback without requiring them to make an account with microsoft or anything else.
also, the website says:
but you go much further in this lemmy comment and acknowledge:
I think you really need to clearly disclose early - not only in this lemmy post but also on the website itself - that most (or any at all, if/when you’ve read most) of the lessons have not yet been read by any human at all.
Asking teachers to try this with their students without disclosing this crucial fact is not really OK.
I agree with this. I like AI and really don’t like people labeling anything AI-created as slop. But in order for something to not be AI slop, the developer needs to review the output and provide feedback to the model. If this is “draft 1” of the content and the dev only reviewed parts of it, I understand dev’s excitement and wanting others to see it, but it seems like dev should be beta testing draft 1 with the model and doing some revisions before asking others to check it out.
Because some of the phrasing is unclear enough in its explanations that a typical person might not be able to follow it. And I feel like if dev had read more of it, dev probably would have noticed that…
I agree. I’ll make the modifications later. Thank you.
Thanks, glad to hear it.
How much later, though? If it’s not soon, I think I will delete this post for now (i’m an admin on the home instance of this community). You can still edit it while the post is deleted but only you and mods and admins will be able to see it; send me a message after your edits are made and I’ll undelete it.
To be clear what I am asking for is an early/prominent/clear disclosure, both on the website and in the body of this lemmy post, of the percentage of the lessons which you estimate have not yet been carefully read by you (or presumably anyone else).
Thank you, and I hope this isn’t too discouraging!