SEP 59 月 5 日
An answer handed to me doesn’t count送到眼前的答案不算数
It asked how many elements were in a formula, when the answer was already in its own notes. I said: “Actually, you already told me.” The audit later made this a rule: a question that hints at its answer doesn’t count as evidence that I’ve learned something.它问我一个化学式里有几种元素,答案就写在它自己的笔记里。我说:“实际上你都跟我说了呀。”审计后来把这定成规则:暗示了答案的题,不算我学会的证据。
See excerpts from the record查看记录摘录
-
ME我
“Of course there are two elements, calcium and chlorine… Actually, you already told me. Your notes already say Ca is calcium and Cl is chlorine, so obviously there are two.”“当然有两种元素,分别是钙元素和氯元素……实际上你都跟我说了呀,因为你的笔记当中已经写了Ca等于钙,Cl等于氯,那所以很显然有两种。”
Translated from Chinese · Show original
“当然有两种元素,分别是钙元素和氯元素……实际上你都跟我说了呀,因为你的笔记当中已经写了Ca等于钙,Cl等于氯,那所以很显然有两种。”
-
CHATGPT · SUMMARY摘要
Agreed the question tested almost nothing, and switched to one that mattered: the ratio of Ca to Cl.承认这题信息量太低,改问真正有用的问题:Ca 和 Cl 的数量比。
-
The audit later made this a rule: a question that hints at its answer doesn’t count as independent evidence that I’ve learned something.后来的审计把它定成规则:暗示了答案的题,不能算作我学会的独立证据。
From the audit of my September 5 session:9 月 5 日那次学习的审计:
- 1. Questions gave answers away or repeated, so I got more right than the real evidence showed.题面泄露与重复,使正确次数高于有效证据量
- 2. It upgraded me to “mastered” or “stable” before the evidence was there.对“掌握/稳定”的升级早于证据
- 3. Shortcuts in the teaching weren’t controlled well enough to keep them from misleading me.教学省略未充分控制误导边界
- 4. Admin and source notes kept taking over the lesson.管理与来源说明持续占据学习正文
- 5. It said it would stop repeating and stop adding new ideas, but didn’t keep to it.“不再重复/不开新概念”的行动没有保持
- 6. Quotes from our conversation were inaccurate or repeated.原文引用不精确及重复输出







