Still working my way through the article, but had to come back to say that "Artificial Intelligence-enabled intelligent assistant" is such a word jumble. Do we really need to use the word...
Still working my way through the article, but had to come back to say that "Artificial Intelligence-enabled intelligent assistant" is such a word jumble. Do we really need to use the word intelligent twice? I'm trying my best to not let the choice bias how I view this paper but it's making it really hard for me to take them seriously.
Later in the article they switch to using "VirtualTA" to talk about their design, which they also refer to as an AI-enabled VTA which I think is a much better acronym and way to refer to it....
Later in the article they switch to using "VirtualTA" to talk about their design, which they also refer to as an AI-enabled VTA which I think is a much better acronym and way to refer to it. Honestly I'm not sure why they went with the word jumble and then abandoned it. It makes it feel kind of amateur and snakesoil salesman.
I don't know how much is my own bias, but I feel like this is rather confirmed later on when the architecture is discussed. Don't get me wrong, I think this is a good step in the direction of more useful AI-enabled things, since we're gonna see no shortage of them. I also think it's addressing a few very important problems, namely a general lack of teachers and a lack of tailored education. But the use of buzz words in a journal makes me trust the content a lot less.... which is a shame, because as I said, this looks like a promising framework for thinking about and addressing some of the deficiencies with current generation chatbots and AI assistants we see deployed around the world when examined through the lens of assisting learning.
Writing a paper and writing software are two different things, but it seems like if the software were any good, there would be a GitHub repo and/or a website where you could try it out? It's hard...
Writing a paper and writing software are two different things, but it seems like if the software were any good, there would be a GitHub repo and/or a website where you could try it out?
It's hard to judge whether software is any good without being able to try it, or at least seeing the results of someone else trying it.
Still working my way through the article, but had to come back to say that "Artificial Intelligence-enabled intelligent assistant" is such a word jumble. Do we really need to use the word intelligent twice? I'm trying my best to not let the choice bias how I view this paper but it's making it really hard for me to take them seriously.
Later in the article they switch to using "VirtualTA" to talk about their design, which they also refer to as an AI-enabled VTA which I think is a much better acronym and way to refer to it. Honestly I'm not sure why they went with the word jumble and then abandoned it. It makes it feel kind of amateur and snakesoil salesman.
I don't know how much is my own bias, but I feel like this is rather confirmed later on when the architecture is discussed. Don't get me wrong, I think this is a good step in the direction of more useful AI-enabled things, since we're gonna see no shortage of them. I also think it's addressing a few very important problems, namely a general lack of teachers and a lack of tailored education. But the use of buzz words in a journal makes me trust the content a lot less.... which is a shame, because as I said, this looks like a promising framework for thinking about and addressing some of the deficiencies with current generation chatbots and AI assistants we see deployed around the world when examined through the lens of assisting learning.
Writing a paper and writing software are two different things, but it seems like if the software were any good, there would be a GitHub repo and/or a website where you could try it out?
It's hard to judge whether software is any good without being able to try it, or at least seeing the results of someone else trying it.