Stephanie Simoes

@critikid.bsky.social

Founder of Critikid.com, a critical thinking site for kids and teens. Posting about: - Science, data, and media literacy - Clear communication - Logic, puzzles, and paradoxes

"I'm really good at pattern recognition, so I'm better than most people at identifying AI." -Person with no reliable way of knowing how often their AI-detection attempts are actually correct

This is about how well it reasons, how reliable its responses are, etc. I'm not referring to other criticisms of AI, such as its environmental impact or how companies get training data, as I think most people would agree that you don't need to use AI to form an informed view on those topics.

Bild

Critical thinking should not be taught as a tool for defending our beliefs. It should be taught as a tool that helps us explore them with questions like: Could I be wrong? Why do I believe this? What evidence do I have? If a belief survives scrutiny, that scrutiny becomes its strongest defense.

POV: Your taxi driver is a logician. You: Can you take the scenic route? Driver: Not unless you give me $10. You: Okay. *You hand over the money. The driver pulls onto the highway.* You: Hey. You said you said you'd take the scenic route if I gave you $10. Driver: I said no such thing.

The false positive paradox often startles people. But it’s only startling because the meaning of “false positive rate” is widely misunderstood. The false positive rate is not the percentage of positive results that are false. It is the percentage of actual negatives that incorrectly test positive.

One of the difficulties of running a site that markets itself as providing critical thinking education for kids is that "critical thinking" can mean very different things to different people!