Artificial Intelligence (AI) Useful for E-Learning Design and Development?

There is already the authoring tool imc Express in which many features offered by OpenAI and deepL are integrated. It's amazing what can be done with it!!!

When will Articulate have these features available in RISE?

I've been experimenting with using the AI art tools--especially Midjourney since I have my own subscription (separate from work) for my personal projects. One place where I think these AI art tools are particularly useful right now is as an adjunct to stock photos.

Very often, stock photos are ALMOST what I want, but not quite.  For example, I often need images of researchers. Most stock photos of people in lab coats also have stethoscopes around their necks, making them suitable for use as doctor characters, but unsuitable as research scientists. Their lab coats are often unbuttoned, which isn't ideal for safety courses aimed at researchers. And they often aren't wearing the appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) such as safety glasses.

All these problems can be fixed in Photoshop if you have the time and the skills to do it, but it is much easier and faster to use the AI tools. You can feed the stock image into the AI tool and use the text prompts to have the AI make the changes. For example, you can feed it the image of someone who is not wearing safety glasses and add the text prompt "wearing safety glasses." You'll get some options back from the AI within a minute or two.

Hi, I have an idea how you can  implement AI the way that all global elearning teams will love you ;-)  it is about creating courses in different language versions , or at least a course  with  closed captions in a  few languages.  That would help a lot! 

I ran across this video where Devin Peck shows how to use a ChatBot in Storyline.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_vuNEC1K4U

I have not, but interested.

Yes - a few things when using ChatGPT. 1. Be specific in your request. No need for simple Google phrases. You can add multiple variables in your request. For instance, I can say write an introduction to this course and give the objectives and it will produce a result. I can also ask it to do the same but add "make it exciting so that teams will want to join this session and add a joke about training to lighten the mood" This is a bad example, but you can see the limits are largely in our own minds! Also, try several prompts and analyze the various results. You may want to combine responses.

Hey Ashley! I have been trying out ChatGPT for all sort of things, from personal (writing poems and stories with the kids) to professional (scripts, quiz questions, and more). I recently wrote a post describing some best practices I discovered and some ways this might be used as a starting point for L&D development. And, similar to what Mike shared above, the limits only go as far as our own minds. I encourage you to play around with the tool and see what it can do. 

Thanks for your comments! Yeah, I'm finding it has several great uses. With the right prompt input, it can generate some surprisingly nuanced content. It's especially good at helping to generate variants of multiple-choice questions for test. Particularly useful too when I get stuck with scenario/story building. This really amplifies the effort when a SME I'm working with can't be available but for a limited window. I get the high-level outline and must have content from the SME, then can have AI "fill - in" any content where I get stuck. To be honest with all the prompting and fine-tuning I sometimes have to do, I find that the process gets my thinking "unstuck" and I just start to generate all the original content on my own.

I'm really intrigued to see what the Articulate team might do to incorporate it one day. Could an embeddable widget of some kind be developed where I can train the AI on content and context and then have it play the part of another person in a truly interactive training scenario ? (I'm in the healthcare space so thinking practice patients for new providers). Could it be trained to help evaluate free-text essay questions?

Curious to hear what others think - please chime in!

Amazing information! I really enjoyed reading this thread and discussions by the people. 

The whole, "every time someone watches CP, the victim is re-victimized" garbage is laughably ridiculous. If this is true, then that means every time someone watches a video of a car crash, a murder, being bitten by a shark, etc., the victim is re-victimized. The logic is sorely lacking here, but that's par for the course when it comes to feminist nonsense. Unfortunately, even though this is a ridiculous notion, the mind can make it real. I'm gonna need to see some research showing that random people finding CP that had already been made has any effect on the rates of distribution or I call bullshit.

If you are attracted to females 11 and over (most likely 11-14), you are not a pedophile. That makes you a hebephile. Although most men are preferential teleiophiles (17ish+), it is normal and widespread for men to find females in this age range sexually attractive as well, although good luck getting anyone to admit that they think middle schoolers are kind of hot in today's world. Some studies show that possibly up to 20% of men have a hebephilic preference. Our species was selected to evolve in this way, which explains why this relationship dynamic has never been considered an issue anywhere in the world for all of human history until like the end of the 1800's when the AoC was raised to an unnaturally high age amidst a panic-ridden populace in the throes of mass hysteria over a largely fictitious work of yellow journalism by W. T. Stead "exposing" an underground child prostitution ring right under everyone's noses in Victorian England. At least we have the consolation prize of knowing the guy who wrote that garbage went down with the Titanic. America suffered a similar panic over prostitution, but the raising of the AoC here was to prevent newly-freed black men from having sex with white chicks and tainting the purity of the white race. It was never raised because people saw hebephilic relationships immoral or "predatory" (it was actually the norm at the time). The age of consent had always either been 12 or lower (it was 10 at the time, actually) in every society through all time. Under any other circumstance, no one in their right mind would have ever agreed to this blatant violation of personal freedom.

Being raped as a child has nothing to do with pedophilia, and most rapes are not even committed by pedophiles.

Up until the late 70's, therapists recommended CP as an effective outlet, although it wouldn't matter very long because the sexual liberation movement was full steam ahead. All the research was showing kids were sexual beings and willing relationships were perfectly harmless. There were many outspoken activists and large activist organizations pushing for abolition of the AoC. The prevailing attitude of the day was that sex is a healthy and necessary part of growing up and everyone has the human right to erotic pleasure -- sex-positivity. They very nearly succeeded until a fringe group of radical sex-negative feminists started spewing out a whole bunch of baseless, unempirical, and unsupported nonsense about power dynamics and tried to co-opt the concept of informed consent, a medical term, bastardized it, and tried to apply it to sexual consent; as if having an orgasm is such an extreme life-risking endeavor akin to triple-bypass heart surgery. They also co-opted feminist rape rhetoric and applied the same terminology to willing intergenerational relationships, calling them invariably abusive, manipulative, and harmful without justification. No one paid any attention to those prudish sex-hating lunatics until very wealthy and influential far-right religious "my child is my property" conservatives realized that they had a common interest. All the sudden these feminists with their not only wacky, but harmful beliefs were given a platform, dissenting opinions were suppressed, and heaps of funding magically became available for anyone willing to produce "research" that contradicted all past research and supported this new abuse/victim narrative. Little did they know they struck a gold mine, and once the reformists caught wind of how much money there was to be made by switching sides, many of them jumped ship to follow the money. What can I say? We ARE Americans, after all.

I gotta say, although this has led to countless lives being needlessly destroyed, it was a brilliant strategic move that caught everybody off-guard. The seemingly unstoppable juggernaut of sexual freedom was stopped dead in its tracks basically overnight. The actual reason why everyone hates "pedophiles" and that kids are harmed by such relationships today has nothing to do with the innate rightness or wrongness of it. The sad truth is that the CSA victim industry is extremely profitable and has now become institutionalized; it's essentially a religion these days. Many people's careers now revolve around this narrative and have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. They've even started pushing for the censorship of people who are catching on and speaking out against this toxic ideology. That is definitely not a tactic a true believer would ever feel the need to employ. But, it is also a sign that they feel threatened and fear losing their grip on power.

Also, people often assert vulnerability and innocence. But being preferentially attracted to females at peak reproductive value (11-14) is not a disorder and implies none of those things any more than being preferentially attracted to ones at peak fertility (late teens/early 20's) does.

Innocence, vulnerability, and power gaps are modern concepts not intrinsic to humans that have been imposed on people since Victorian times. Before then, there was no concept of a "childhood" extending past like 7 or 8. People were just people. Now there's an artificial divide between people under 18 and over 18. This appears to work out okay for most people, but actually makes life hell for others for no good reason.

There is this modern invention of people thinking you're up to no good unless you're with someone your own age. This doesn't just apply to teen/adult relationships. People are giving Leonardo DiCaprio shit for dating 20 year olds.

The "having to be with someone your own age" nonsense is VERY new in human history and is only seriously predominant in America, the country with the most deviant sexual norms in human history. Also the country with the 2nd (only to Ukraine, who's being invaded by Russia ATM) highest rate of depression in the world and the highest rates of STDs and unwanted pregnancy in the Western world.

By contrast, Mexico has an AoC of 12 and most of Europe's is 14 without causing serious social problems. How do we account for that, and why are they more free than the citizens of the country that calls itself “the land of the free?”

No one can help who they feel attracted to; that spark, that butterflies-in-your-tummy feeling, who they feel happiest around.

I'm not a fan of demonizing people because of arbitrary social norms. Like I said, the AoC in Mexico is 12, but since they're younger and have less experience, if they want to be with someone 18+, they can bring charges on the older party if they feel used/taken advantage of. They understand that willing relationships aren't harmful and people deserve freedom in their personal lives.