Can kids outsmart AI? Puzzle games put them to the test

Many adults trust AI systems that confidently give wrong answers. Children, who lack deep domain knowledge, often find it even harder to tell when AI is wrong.

A new game developed by University of Washington researchers flips the script. It helps kids recognize AI’s failures and think more critically about its logic.

Kids test AI logic

AI Puzzlers draws its design from the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC), a set of visual puzzles that are easy for humans and hard for machines. These puzzles don’t require language. Instead, they ask users to spot a pattern and apply it to new inputs using color grids.

The game engages kids by asking them to solve puzzles first. Then, they test AI chatbots on the same puzzles and compare answers.

Even if the AI sometimes guesses the right answer, its explanation rarely matches. This mismatch becomes a key moment of discovery. Kids learn that confidence doesn’t equal correctness.

“Kids naturally loved ARC puzzles and they’re not specific to any language or culture,” said study lead author Aayushi Dangol. “Because the puzzles rely solely on visual pattern recognition, even kids that can’t read yet can play and learn.”

Kids notice when AI fails

Kids begin by thinking AI is smart. They expect it to outperform them. But when AI repeatedly fails, the surprise sparks curiosity and laughter. “That is very very wrong,” one child said after watching an AI completely miss a basic pattern.

Visual comparison helps kids instantly spot what the AI missed. This strengthens their own logic and boosts confidence. They begin to understand that being human brings advantages. Unlike AI, they can use creativity, context, and reasoning grounded in real experience.

One child described the AI as having “the internet’s mind,” saying, “It’s trying to solve it based only on the internet, but the human brain is creative.”

Kids guide AI with better instructions

AI Puzzlers includes a special Assist Mode where kids give the AI clues. This mode turns them into guides, not just players.

The children move from broad statements like “Make a donut” to specific instructions like “Place white in the center, blue all around.” As they experiment, they learn how to help the AI get closer to the correct logic.

The researchers found that this step-by-step refining deepened the kids’ understanding. They weren’t just pointing out errors. They were learning how AI misinterprets vague language and how precise input shapes better output.

In one session, a child wrote, “Make a pattern of the colors and gray alternating and a background of white, red, light blue, green, yellow.” The AI still got it wrong.

The frustration was real. “I am so done with you, AI,” the child said. But the effort showed critical thinking at work.

Game mechanics that build AI literacy

The game uses three main modes: Manual, AI, and Assist. In Manual Mode, kids build their answers from scratch.

AI Mode lets them test the chatbot’s performance and read its reasoning. Assist Mode invites them to guide the AI, learning what helps and what doesn’t.

This design is grounded in Mayer and Moreno’s theory of multimedia learning. By using both visuals and text, the game lightens cognitive overload and keeps kids engaged. Switching between modes lets them explore ideas, spot contradictions, and build layered understanding.

Kids can help improve AI

The researchers used a participatory design approach called Cooperative Inquiry. In two summer sessions, 21 children aged 6 to 11 collaborated with adult facilitators. These kids weren’t just test subjects. They helped shape the tool.

Children gave feedback, refined features, and even inspired the Assist Mode. In group discussions, they evaluated AI logic, challenged explanations, and brainstormed ideas to improve AI understanding.

One child noted: “AI is very scientific, given its scientific explanation, but sometimes it’s better not to go super, duper scientific.”

The project showed that children, when given space and tools, are more than passive users. They become critics, testers, and co-creators.

Comparing minds: Human vs. machine

As they kept solving puzzles, kids saw the difference between how they think and how AI thinks. AI, they noticed, often guesses randomly or repeats errors.

“AI just keeps guessing,” one child said. Another called it “stupid” and said it only “gets lucky.”

The kids began to frame AI as limited. “Look at the references and think like a human being,” one urged. They recognized that humans can draw from experience, emotion, and logic, while AI relies on patterns it has seen.

This shift is crucial. Children stopped treating AI as infallible. They started viewing it as a tool that needs supervision, not praise.

Critical thinking in other settings

The system is open source and works on any browser. The team hopes to extend it with more puzzle types and newer AI models. They also want to explore if these critical thinking skills transfer to other settings like schoolwork or web searches.

The researchers are also thinking about voice integration and better accessibility for colorblind users.

The long-term vision is to help kids build habits of questioning, experimenting, and reflecting. These are skills that apply far beyond the game.

Puzzles build AI skills

This work shows that critical AI thinking doesn’t need lectures. It can begin with puzzles, color grids, and curiosity. By allowing kids to compare, question, and fix AI logic, AI Puzzlers gives them agency.

“Kids are smart and capable,” said study co-senior author Julie Kientz. “We need to give them opportunities to make up their own minds about what AI is and isn’t.”

The success of AI Puzzlers shows what’s possible. When kids are given space to think critically, they don’t just understand AI. They start to outthink it.

The study is published in Proceedings of the 24th Interaction Design and Children.

—–

Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates. 

Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.

—–