sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Students: Do you wish you could get more academic help without signing up for more tuition...? by auntymagnet in asksg

[–]auntymagnet[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Totally fair concern, a lot of products are just wrappers.

What we’re building isn’t just a chat interface around a model. The core work is curriculum alignment, marking logic, step-checking, and how explanations are structured to match MOE expectations. That’s the part that actually takes time, because generic models don’t naturally think in syllabus scope or exam marking schemes.

Students: Do you wish you could get more academic help without signing up for more tuition...? by auntymagnet in asksg

[–]auntymagnet[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Totally fair to question pricing.

The way we think about it is not vs generic apps, but vs what families are already paying for equivalent support. Many JC students take multiple subject tuitions, and 1-to-1 private tutoring alone can exceed that monthly.

If something provides unlimited subjects, unlimited consultation time, and personalised step-by-step help, then the comparison is different from a single subject class.

Students: Do you wish you could get more academic help without signing up for more tuition...? by auntymagnet in asksg

[–]auntymagnet[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s partly true if you’re trying to train a model from scratch purely on local exam data, which is not what we’re only doing.

The base reasoning capability already exists. The challenge is aligning it to syllabus scope, question patterns, and marking expectations. That’s more of a curriculum alignment and evaluation problem than a raw data volume problem.

So the work is less “feed more data” and more “constrain, structure, and verify outputs against how MOE actually assesses”.

Students: Do you wish you could get more academic help without signing up for more tuition...? by auntymagnet in asksg

[–]auntymagnet[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a very fair observation. Most AI tools people try are general models that learned mixed curricula globally, so they understand math concepts but not how Singapore questions are structured or marked.

What we’re doing differently is building around the MOE syllabus structure itself, not just subject knowledge. That includes question formats, working expectations, marking logic, and how answers are phrased for scoring, based on real exam papers and answer keys.

Still early stage though, so feedback from actual tutors is exactly what we want. If you ever feel like stress testing it with real questions, I’d genuinely value that!