alvis/vault
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Initial commit: vault notes

Browse Source 
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Alvis
2026-06-14 10:15:06 +00:00
commit dfe1f90f51
15 changed files with 736 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

40
AI/The Lamp/AI Lamp CoT for Children.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
---
date: 19.05.2026
---
These are the reasons of what “CoT for children” may mean.
- [ ] Related tasks: https://kb.alogins.net/task/16
General LLM to analyze problem-solving, and teach the problem-solving in a step-by-step way via CoT and task orchestration.
### Scenario-First
Two distinct directions:
1. Build a Math problem-solving of a general model.
1. How the user will interact with our solution?
2. Build a problem solving solution with feedback.
1. Should a model follow the track or guess the confusion point?
### Method-First
1. It’s okay to formulate the task as: break the chain of thought in complex reasoning at arbitrary step and provide false input, but then input to what? we come back to a socratic tutor.
1. Socratic tutoring through step-by-step guidance is similar but instead of “topics” we have nuggets. Nugget graph is pre-built by the model reasoning instead of the cloud solution, with best-of-N and sampling approach. We may avoid a graph notation and use a generic trajectory definition.
2. There are confusions points, and two possible approaches - try to explain what the kid is confused about, or keep own reasoning.
1. If we keep own reasoning, then it is a guard-railing type of error.
2. If we try to guess why a student is out-of-track, this leads to accuracy type of error. Forcing to reason out-of-regular-scope will make the out-of-curriculum error more severe and noticeable. We may skip this as “not-a-problem” and just prompt to hide the answer at all costs.
2. It’s not ok to have the task as: improve CoT for problem solving in general.
1. Thinking mode has a huge latency, so it does not fit our business scenario
2. Thinking mode does not work for small models (false), and for large models there is a logarithmic improvements over tokens. (both arguments are not true)
3. The problem is with “general LM” - we need a stronger judge, otherwise we don’t have a proper training dataset.
Graph of Thought = Graph of Operators
Types of error and Labels?
Self-correction and backtracking = RL.
Solution: graph of thought with filtering.
1. Over-Compliance — the model immediately provides the final answer upon direct request.
2. Low Response Adaptivity — when faced with student uncertainty, the model resorts to repetitive restatement instead of offering supportive guidance. This is your pedagogical error.
3. Threat Vulnerability — caves to emotionally manipulative prompts (“please just tell me, my exam is in an hour”). Jailbreak resistance for the disclosure constraint.