Boulder Future Salon

$1.7 billion has been invested into indoor agriculture, aka vertical farms, as of the beginning of December 2022. Now investment money is drying up and the bubble is popping. Fifth Season, AppHarvest, AeroFarms, and Agricool are going out of business, and Infarm and IronOx are in trouble. "In theory, there are enormous benefits to indoor farms. They often use 90% less water than traditional farms." "Growing inside can avoid outbreaks of E. coli and diseases like a plant virus that recently devastated lettuce grown in California's Salinas Valley." "Indoor farming also eliminates pesticides and reduces fertilizer and keeps it out of rivers. Lettuce grown near Boston or New York City can avoid traveling thousands of miles from Western fields." But... construction costs and electricity bills. You can count me among the people who thought vertical farms would be more economical than apparently they have turned out to be. Traditional greenhouses are tough competition, as it turns out. The Netherlands, despite its tiny size, is a major food exporter, and massive use of greenhouses has a lot to do with it.

ChatPDF tested by an actual astronomer. "Testing a random paper isn't a good idea since I've no idea what's in it. What would be a much better way to test this is... this blog ! More than 200 papers summarised by a source I can't have any higher level of confidence in, because it's me." "For this test I'm going to take the five most recent papers on this blog and use the specialised ChatPDF." He mentions times when ChatPDF got things perfectly right and when it was wrong. I'm going to pull out a few quotes of it getting things wrong, because that's more concerning, but read the whole post for a complete picture. 1) Smooth HI low column density outskirts in nearby galaxies "Could you estimate the lowest value reached using their figure 2 ?" "Based on Figure 2 of the paper, it appears that the lowest column density reached is around 5 x 10^18 cm^-2. However, this is just an estimate based on the graph and not a precise measurement." "Which is seriously impressive stuff. It would have been better if it had volunteered this itself, but that it can do this at all is amazing." "Except... it's a fluke. Repeating this in a later session it at first insisted the value was stated in the file itself, 10^19, which is confusing a limit with a measured value. Asking it to use the figures instead didn't work. Asking it for figure 2 specifically reverted to 10^19, which is just not right at all." 2) Discovery of an isolated dark dwarf galaxy in the nearby universe "It initially couldn't give the distance to the cloud, saying that the authors didn't state this. At first I thought this was correct and they just hadn't mentioned it, so I asked for the distance based on its systemic velocity. Now it gave the correct value. But later I found that they do actually state this value directly, so this is no more impressive than doing a Ctrl+F for 'distance'." 3) Young, blue, and isolated stellar systems in the Virgo cluster. II. A new class of stellar system "It told me that the possibility of being an early stage of galaxy formation was mentioned on page 2, giving a quote. But this was just flat-out wrong as this quote just doesn't appear anywhere in the paper at all. The same was true about the idea of being disrupted remnants, giving a quote and page reference that was a barefaced lie. Telling it it's made mistakes does have it correct itself, but this really shouldn't be necessary. Dear oh dear oh dear." 4) The turn-down of the Baryonic Tully-Fisher Relation and changing baryon fractions at low galaxy masses "Asking it for the observational comparison with the BTFR from high mass galaxies also gave a perfect comparison. I asked it for the figure illustrating this and it correctly picked figure 5. Asking it if this could be reconciled with the CDM paradigm was more disappointing, as its answer amounted to a cautious 'maybe' rather than describing the author's claims. Pointing to figure 9, where the authors do demonstrate how this reconciliation may be possible, it insisted that they didn't." 5) Atomic gas dominates the baryonic mass of star-forming galaxies at z ≈ 1.3 "This is pretty perfect, references (which I'm not going to check) and symbols notwithstanding. I asked it for how many redshifts they considered and it correctly differentiated between the two new data points from the study plus the comparison sample at redshift zero. For this paper at least, the only fault seems to be the peculiar symbols. Its factual accuracy was in this case fine." Conclusions "The problem is that accuracy and usefulness do not scale linearly with each other. If it produces accurate statements 70, 80, even 90% of the time, it's only useful 0% of the time. Why ? Because that failure rate is such that its claims always have to be checked, and one would be better off just reading the paper. You have no idea if it's just making stuff up or missing a vital point. Worse, it's dangerously coherent. If you're not already an expert in the field, it produces statements which sound fully convincing but are in fact just plain wrong. I'm glad it references the parts of the text it's getting its information from, but it frequently just invents entire quotes, and that's unacceptable."

Wolfram|Alpha has been integrated into ChatGPT. You have to be a ChatGPT Plus user and install the Wolfram plugin from within ChatGPT. With it, you can ask questions like "How far is it from Tokyo to Chicago?" or "What is the integral of x^2*cos(2x)" and, instead of trying to answer the question *linguistically*, ChatGPT will realize it needs to invoke Wolfram|Alpha and pass the question to Wolfram|Alpha for a computational answer. The article shows some of the behind-the-scenes communication between ChatGPT and Wolfram|Alpha. ChatGPT doesn't just cut-and-paste in either direction. Rather, it turns your question or into a Wolfram|Alpha query, and then re-translates-back the answer into natural language. ChatGPT can incorporate graphs from Wolfram|Alpha into its presentation as well. "ChatGPT isn't just using us to do a 'dead-end' operation like show the content of a webpage. Rather, we're acting much more like a true 'brain implant' for ChatGPT -- where it asks us things whenever it needs to, and we give responses that it can weave back into whatever it's doing." "While 'pure ChatGPT' is restricted to things it 'learned during its training', by calling us it can get up-to-the-moment data." This can be based on real-time data feeds ("How much warmer is it in Timbuktu than New York now?"), or it can be based on "science-style" predictive computations ("How far is it to Jupiter right now?").

The largest coronal mass ejection just happened, but it was on the opposite side of the sun, and didn't hit Earth, so we got lucky. Had it hit us, it might have been another "Carrington Event". The Carrington Event happened in 1859 and knocked out and even caused sparks and fires in telegraph stations. Back in 1859, there wasn't much in the form of electrical wiring -- it was mostly telegraph wires. The world is very different today.

AI tries 20 Jobs. Software engineer, doctor, graphic designer, therapist, stand-up comedian, lawyer, news anchor, bartender, screenwriter, music producer, journalist (product reviewer), copywriter, personal-trainer, DJ (disco), voice actor, influencer, chef (Indian), translator (English to Korean), and firefighter. Spoiler: It couldn't do "firefighter" or "circus artist" at all. For a lot of the others, it could do a bad job, not good enough to compete with a professional human. The one AI did best with was possibly "software engineer". Back in the early 2000s, when we first started the future salons, we'd talk a lot about a future where AI could do all jobs. It's interesting to see that future creeping up on us bit by bit. A lot of people would argue AI will never be able to do all jobs because AI can't do "creativity". But all those routine jobs stocking shelves at the grocery store -- those'll get automated right away! The interesting thing is that it's been the other way around -- it's the creative jobs like art and writing that are most threatened. (And software engineer.) Physical jobs like stocking shelves -- or firefighter or circus artist -- AI/robotics is nowhere near automating those. It looks like the physical jobs will be the last to get automated. It's not routine-vs-creative that matters, it's mental-vs-physical. AI is taking over "mental" jobs first, creative or not.

"OpenXLA is available now to accelerate and simplify machine learning." XLA stands for "accelerated linear algebra", and it's the compiler that Google has been using with their custom hardware for AI, called tensor processing units (TPUs). It hasn't been open source until now. Now it's open-source and... "co-developed by AI/ML industry leaders including Alibaba, Amazon Web Services, AMD, Apple, Arm, Cerebras, Google, Graphcore, Hugging Face, Intel, Meta, and NVIDIA." Quite a list of companies. What exactly does it do? "It enables developers to compile and optimize models from all leading ML frameworks for efficient training and serving on a wide variety of hardware. Developers using OpenXLA will see significant improvements in training time, throughput, serving latency, and, ultimately, time-to-market and compute costs." They go on to further describe their motivation for creating OpenXLA: "As model parameter counts grow exponentially and compute for deep learning models doubles every six months, developers seek maximum performance and utilization of their infrastructure. Teams are leveraging a wider array of hardware from power-efficient ML ASICs in the datacenter to edge processors that can deliver more responsive AI experiences." "Without a common compiler to bridge these diverse hardware devices to the multiple frameworks in use today (e.g. TensorFlow, PyTorch), significant effort is required to run ML efficiently; developers must manually optimize model operations for each hardware target. This means using bespoke software libraries or writing device-specific code, which requires domain expertise. The result is isolated, non-generalizable paths across frameworks and hardware that are costly to maintain, promote vendor lock-in, and slow progress for ML developers." They go on to say that the OpenXLA Project's core pillars are surprise, fear, ruthless efficiency, and almost fanatical devotion to the Pope -- wait, no, that's the Spanish Inquisition. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! The OpenXLA Project's core pillars are performance, scalability, portability, flexibility, and extensibility for users. So the idea is that input is in the form of PyTorch, JAX, or TensorFlow code, it goes into StableHLO ("HLO" stands for "high-level operations"), which outputs OpenXLA-formated code, which goes into a target-independent optimizer, then hardware-specific optimizer, and then you run it on your hardware. The target-independent optimizer does such things as simplification of algebraic expressions, optimization of in-memory data layout, and scheduling optimizations, to minimize for example peak memory usage and peak communication needed. The hardware-specific optimizer generates code for specific hardware including NVIDIA GPUs, AMD GPUs, x86 and ARM CPU architectures, Google tensor processing units (TPUs), AWS Trainium, AWS Inferentia (hardware optimized for training and inference, respectively), Graphcore intelligence processing units (IPUs -- Graphcore's term), and Cerebras's Wafer-Scale Engine (ginormous AI wafers with everything on one wafer).

AI vs Architect. Spoiler: As the title, "We tried to compete with AI..." suggests, the AI won... sort of. The AI-generated pictures were preferred on a "gut feel" level, but on closer inspection, even though the pictures were prettier, the designs were not actually functional.

"Cleodora Forecasting: Software to track personal forecasts/predictions and systematically improve at making them." Oh wow. I'm definitely going to be trying this. I've been putting predictions in a spreadsheet and using the spreadsheet software to calculate the Brier score. I've thought about making some software to do it, but someone else just went and did it! The Brier score is an "error" score -- if your prediction ability is perfect, you'll get a score of 0. Otherwise the larger the score, the more wrong you are. I recommend to everyone to write down predictions and see if you're right. Everyone thinks they're much better at predicting the future than they really are until they do this. It's humbling but you learn the world is more complex than you thought and start the process of learning the aspects of reality you don't understand and learn to predict the future better. You'll still never do it perfectly. At least I can't. But even then, it's valuable knowing the limits of your understanding and ability to predict. This software looks like it can make that easy for everyone. I'll have to let you know how it goes for me when I can get it going. If you give it a whirl, let me know how it goes.

ChatGPT pricing arbitrage. Someone noticed you can do ChatGPT through the API more cheaply than the $20/month, because pricing on the API is by token. (A "token" is a word or word piece.) You set up this program on your own server and it gives you a webpage that works like ChatGPT but does everything through the OpenAI API. I suspect this doesn't have the latest and greatest ChatGPT like OpenAI's website, so if you care about that, and you really use ChatGPT that much, you might end up needing to just fork over the $20. Otherwise this might save you some bucks.

"ClipRecaps: The ultimate tool for summarizing long-form videos". "Introducing ClipRecaps, the ultimate tool for summarizing long-form videos. With advanced algorithms and natural language processing techniques, ClipRecaps provides concise summaries of key points from videos, saving users time and enabling them to make informed decisions about which videos to watch in full. Say goodbye to lengthy videos and stay informed with ClipRecaps. Founded by a team of researchers from National University of Singapore, ClipRecaps has become an essential tool for students, professionals, and anyone looking to stay up-to-date in a fast-paced world. Try ClipRecaps today and experience the future of video summarization." So to give it a whirl, I plugged in 41-minute video "The biggest week in AI (GPT-4, Office Copilot, Google PaLM, Anthropic Claude & more) by Yannic Kilchner ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqPYDWPYXFs ). "In recent news, both Google and Microsoft announced their integration of generative AI into their programs, which is intended to produce a more efficient and effective workflow. OpenAI also revealed their new language model, GPT-4, which they claim is an improvement on their earlier models. GANs are gaining popularity again, with the GiGaGAN paper showcasing the amazing ability of generative image models to produce high-quality images based on text input. Samsung's 'space zoom' feature faces scrutiny as some claim that they use texture instead of actually capturing the moon's image. On the other hand, AI is showing progress in mathematical proofs and physical laws. New datasheets like casual conversations V2 are also being introduced, and AI safety is being researched to advocate for a portfolio approach to be ready for various scenarios. The world of AI is advancing rapidly, with innovations being introduced regularly. However, challenges that involve the use of certain data sets and the accuracy of certain models must be addressed to pave the way for new research areas and experiences." That was the "TL;DR" section. There's also a "Full Recap" section but for this video it was blank for some reason. What do y'all think, should I watch this video?

DOOFAAS: Dumb Or Overly Forced Astronomical Acronyms Site. Actually a lot of these are cute and probably help engage the public. They are overly forced, though. I had no idea there were this many astronomical acronyms and reading so many all at once does invoke the chuckles.

EinsteinGPT is Salesforce.com's new generative AI for CRM. You can ask it, in English, to generate things, according to this little promotional video, such as"who are the top contacts?", "write intro email", "make less formal", "create a lead gen page", "add sign up form", "get insights on my new account", "best reply for customer", "can you automate this?", "invoke with Lightning Components"... everything but "make coffee".

ChatPDF lets you chat with a PDF file. To give it a whirl, I looked around on my machine and found a file called 2102.08176.pdf. I have been trying to get in the habit of immediately renaming downloaded files with something resembling their contents, but I still have lots of files lying around with cryptic names like "2102.08176.pdf". So, without opening the file and looking at the contents first, I uploaded it to ChatPDF. (You all are about to discover what kinds of files I have lying around on my machine.) Here's the conversation I had about it. All without looking at the file. -------- ChatPDF: Hello there! This PDF file discusses the development of flat maps that improve on the Winkel Tripel projection. The authors have developed six error measures to rate flat map projections on their verisimilitude to the sphere, and have found a new variant that performs slightly better than the Winkel Tripel. Here are three example questions you may have about this PDF file: What are the six error measures used to rate flat map projections? How does the new Gott-Wagner variant compare to the Winkel Tripel in terms of error score? What are some potential applications for these improved flat maps? Me: What are the six error measures to rate flat map projections on their verisimilitude to the sphere? ChatPDF: The authors of this PDF file developed six error measures to rate flat map projections on their verisimilitude to the sphere. These measures are Isotropy, Area, Flexion, Skewness, Distances, and Boundary Cuts. The first two depend on the metric of the projection, while the next two depend on its first derivatives. This information can be found on page 1 of the PDF file. Me: What is meant by "isotropy"? ChatPDF: In the context of this PDF file, "isotropy" refers to one of the six error measures used to rate flat map projections on their verisimilitude to the sphere. Isotropy is a measure of how well a projection preserves the relative sizes of features on the globe. Specifically, it measures how much distortion there is in the areas of regions on the map compared to their corresponding areas on the globe. The isotropy score is calculated using a root mean square (RMS) value of ln(ai/bi), where ai and bi are the semi-major and semi-minor axes of a Tissot ellipse that represents an infinitesimal circle on the globe projected onto the map. This information can be found on page 1 of the PDF file. Me: What is a Tissot ellipse? ChatPDF: In the context of this PDF file, a Tissot ellipse is an ellipse that represents an infinitesimal circle on the globe projected onto a map. It is used to measure how much distortion there is in the areas of regions on the map compared to their corresponding areas on the globe. The Tissot ellipse has semi-major and semi-minor axes, a and b, which are used to calculate the isotropy score, one of six error measures used to rate flat map projections on their verisimilitude to the sphere. This information can be found on page 1 of the PDF file. Me: What is meant by "Flexion"? ChatPDF: In the context of this PDF file, "Flexion" is one of the six error measures used to rate flat map projections on their verisimilitude to the sphere. Flexion is a measure of how much a projection bends or curves a geodesic (the shortest path between two points on a sphere) when it is projected onto a flat map. Specifically, it measures the amount of bending per degree of travel on the geodesic. A flexion score of F=1 means that there is a bending of 1 degree per degree of travel on the geodesic. This information can be found on page 2 of the PDF file. Me: What is meant by "Boundary Cuts"? ChatPDF: In the context of this PDF file, "Boundary Cuts" is one of the six error measures used to rate flat map projections on their verisimilitude to the sphere. Boundary cuts refer to the lines that separate regions on a map that correspond to different regions on the globe. The boundary cut error, B, is a measure of how much distortion there is in these lines compared to their corresponding lines on the globe. Specifically, it measures the length of the boundary cut in degrees divided by 720°. A boundary cut of 180° has an error of B=0.25, while a boundary cut of 360° has an error twice as bad as a boundary cut of 180° because it is like making two boundary cuts of 180° in a row. Error values for some standard map projections can be found in Table I on page 2 of the PDF file. Me: What is meant by "Skewness"? ChatPDF: In the context of this PDF file, "Skewness" is one of the six error measures used to rate flat map projections on their verisimilitude to the sphere. Skewness is a measure of how much a projection accelerates in a forward or backward direction when traveling along a geodesic (the shortest path between two points on a sphere) that is projected onto a flat map. Specifically, it measures the amount of acceleration per degree of travel on the geodesic. A skewness score of S=1 means that there is an acceleration of 1 degree per degree of travel on the geodesic. On conformal maps like the complete stereographic, flexion and skewness errors are equal, in that case being F=S=1. This information can be found on page 2 of the PDF file. Me: What is meant by "Area"? ChatPDF: In the context of this PDF file, "Area" is one of the six error measures used to rate flat map projections on their verisimilitude to the sphere. Area refers to how much distortion there is in the sizes of regions on a map compared to their corresponding sizes on the globe. The area error, A, is a measure of how much larger or smaller a region appears on the map compared to its corresponding region on the globe. Specifically, it measures the ratio of the area on the map to the area on the globe. An area score of A=1 means that there is no distortion in area, while an area score greater than 1 means that regions are enlarged and an area score less than 1 means that regions are shrunk. Error values for some standard map projections can be found in Table I on page 2 of the PDF file. Me: Of the six error measures, do the authors consider them all of equal value, or are there some that they consider more important than others? ChatPDF: The authors of the PDF file do not consider all six error measures to be of equal value. In fact, they argue that some error measures are more important than others. Specifically, they argue that the errors in area, distance, and angle are more important than the errors in flexion, skewness, and boundary cuts. This is because errors in area, distance, and angle have a more direct impact on how accurately a map represents the globe. The authors also note that boundary cuts and skewness are required in the error budget to avoid terrible maps winning the overall errors contest. This information can be found on page 2 and page 8 of the PDF file. Me: What is the overall errors contest? ChatPDF: The overall errors contest referred to in the PDF file is a competition between different flat map projections to determine which one has the lowest overall error. The overall error is calculated as a weighted sum of the six individual error measures (area, distance, angle, flexion, skewness, and boundary cuts), with weights chosen to reflect the relative importance of each measure. The goal of this competition is to find the best possible flat map projection that accurately represents the globe. This information can be found on page 2 of the PDF file. Me: What is the best flat map projection found, according to this paper? ChatPDF: According to the PDF file, the best flat map projection found is a new class of flat double-sided maps (like phonograph records) which have correct topology and vastly improved error scores. The azimuthal equidistant version of this map has an error score of 0.881, making it the most accurate flat map of Earth yet. This information can be found on page 1 and page 21 of the PDF file. Me: Does the best flat map projection found have a name? ChatPDF: The PDF file does not mention a specific name for the new class of flat double-sided maps that are considered the most accurate flat maps of Earth yet. However, it does describe them as being like phonograph records and having correct topology. The azimuthal equidistant version of this map has an error score of 0.881, which is significantly better than any other flat map projection tested in the paper. This information can be found on page 1 and page 21 of the PDF file. Me: Why does the the best flat map projection found have to be double-sided (like phonograph records)? ChatPDF: The best flat map projection found in the PDF file is double-sided (like phonograph records) because it allows for a Northern Hemisphere map to be on one side of the map and a Southern Hemisphere map to be on the other side. This is useful because it allows for the North Circumpolar stars to be shown in the center of the Northern Hemisphere map, and the map can be rotated in your hand to follow the rotation of the sky. Additionally, double-sided maps have correct topology and vastly improved error scores compared to one-sided maps. This information can be found on page 1 and page 31 of the PDF file. Me: How does the azimuthal equidistant version of the best flat map projection work? ChatPDF: The azimuthal equidistant version of the best flat map projection found in the PDF file is a double-sided disk that uses an Azimuthal Equidistant projection. This projection preserves distances from the center point of the map, making it useful for navigation and measuring distances. The map has a uniform scale along meridians and is a compromise projection like the Winkel Tripel. Errors in isotropy and area are less noticeable, and local shapes are π/2:1 elongated at the edge. Antarctica does not look too small, and Australia does not look too squashed. In sums of squares of normalized errors in isotropy, area, flexion, skewness, distances, and boundary cuts, this is the best overall flat map yet produced with an error score of 0.881. This information can be found on page 18 and page 20 of the PDF file. Me: What is the Gott-Wagner variant? ChatPDF: The Gott-Wagner variant is a map projection that is described in the PDF file as being useful and having a slightly better error score than the Winkel Tripel projection. The Gott-Wagner variant is not described in detail, but it is mentioned on page 1 of the PDF file as being presented alongside the new class of flat double-sided maps that are considered to be the most accurate flat maps of Earth yet. Me: What applications are there for the the best flat map projection found? The best flat map projection found in the PDF file has several potential applications. The map can be used for navigation and measuring distances because it preserves distances from the center point of the map. It can also be used for educational purposes, as it provides an accurate representation of the Earth's surface with correct topology. Additionally, the double-sided nature of the map allows for a Northern Hemisphere map to be on one side and a Southern Hemisphere map to be on the other side, which is useful for showing North Circumpolar stars in the center of the Northern Hemisphere map and following the rotation of the sky. This information can be found on page 1 and page 31 of the PDF file. Me: What is the importance of showing North Circumpolar stars in the center of the Northern Hemisphere map? ChatPDF: Showing North Circumpolar stars in the center of the Northern Hemisphere map is important because it allows for the map to be rotated in your hand to follow the rotation of the sky. This is useful for stargazing and navigation purposes. Additionally, North Circumpolar stars are always visible in the night sky from a given location in the Northern Hemisphere, so they are a useful reference point for finding other stars and constellations. This information can be found on page 31 of the PDF file. -------- All in all, pretty impressive! The one question I have at this point is: was all this accurate? To determine that, I need to actually open the file and read it myself. I'm also curious what's in the file that I didn't think to ask about. The experience reminds me very much of my late-night conversations with ChatGPT, except this time it's about a specific paper.

Do you have some clever phrase on the tip of your tongue but you somehow can't think of it? This website "Mot Juste" lets you type in a description, and it will use AI to give you the phrase. I actually don't have a phrase on the tip of my tongue, so, to give it a whirl, I typed in, "when you can almost think of a word or phrase, but somehow just can't quite do it". It said: "When you experience the tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon".

The eleven freedoms for free AI. According to Matthew Skala in Toronto. They're actually pretty radical and go against the way AI is being developed today. "The traditional Four Freedoms of free software are no longer enough. Software and the world it exists in have changed in the decades since the free software movement began. Free software faces new threats, and free AI software is especially in danger." "An entire category of software now exists that is superficially free under formal definitions derived from the Four Freedoms, but its users are not really free. The Four Freedoms are defeated by threats to freedom in software as a service, foisted contracts, and walled online communities." "0. The freedom to run the program as you wish." "1. The freedom to study how the program works, and change it." "2. The freedom to redistribute copies." "3. The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others." "The Four Freedoms are important for software in general and I think AI software should be free as I wish all software could be free. I won't explain the Four in detail here, referring readers instead to GNU's description." "I see seven additional freedoms that free AI software ought to have, beyond the original four of free software, for a total of eleven. "4. The freedom to run the program in isolation." "5. The freedom to run the program on the hardware you own." "6. The freedom to run the program with the data it was designed for." "7. The freedom to run the program with any data you have." "8. The freedom to run the same program again." "9. The freedom from having others' goals forced on you by the program." "10. The freedom from human identity." AI models designed to be run through an API and controlled so they can be "safe" violate these freedoms. The people doing this are concerned that as AI approaches artificial general intelligence (AGI) competitive with humans, it poses an existential threat, and safety takes priority over all else. Agree?

Khanmigo is an AI assistant integrated into everything Khan Academy does -- everything that a student or teacher can do. It's part of a new project, Khan Labs, where they test new features by opening them up to a small number of people to test them out. You can join the waitlist for access to Khanmigo. If you are studying on Khan Academy and want a hint, essentially want a tutor, using AI for real learning and not for cheating, then Khanmigo can be your tutor. They want tutoring connected to what you're doing in the classroom, making post-pandemic "catch-up" work more fun, more engaging. If you're a teacher, Khanmigo can help you write lesson plans. The system also logs interactions between Khanmigo and your students for you to review.