The "Huh?" Button: Improving Understanding in Educational Videos with Large Language Models

Boris Ruf; Marcin Detyniecki

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 28 references

The "Huh?" Button: Improving Understanding in Educational Videos with Large Language Models

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A 'Huh?' button on educational videos could let a large language model rephrase and explain confusing moments in real time, with all explanations pre-generated and cached so no live AI calls are needed during playback.

desk verdict A useful, honest workshop prototype whose central 'anytime clarification' interaction has a temporal alignment flaw visible in the paper's own examples. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14201 v2 pith:QHSIQA43 submitted 2024-12-15 cs.HC cs.CY

Boris Ruf , Marcin Detyniecki This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.HCcs.CY

keywords EducationalTechnologyHumanComputerInteractionGenerativeAILargeLanguageModelsvideolecturesrephrasingcachingcarbonfootprint

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes adding a "Huh?" button to educational videos: when a viewer gets lost, they press it (or say a keyword), the video pauses, and a large language model rephrases and expands on the last phrase using the video's transcript. The authors claim this combines the low inhibition threshold of digital interaction with the rephrasing benefit of a live teacher, and they demonstrate technical feasibility with a proof-of-concept on three YouTube lectures plus a working prototype plugin. They further claim the design is unusually cache-friendly: because the explanation for a given timestamp is the same for every viewer, all LLM calls can happen offline in advance, leaving only lightweight HTTP requests during playback and sharply reducing the carbon footprint. If the approach works, it offers a scalable, low-cost way to close individual knowledge gaps in the millions of existing educational videos.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the timestamp-keyed explanation cache. The paper observes that in a linear video, the correct clarification for a given moment depends only on the transcript up to that point, not on the individual viewer, so every user who presses the button at the same moment receives the same explanation. This turns a seemingly interactive LLM application into a pre-computable one: explanations are generated once at fixed intervals (every five seconds in the prototype, at two levels of detail), stored as web resources, and served via HTTP during playback, eliminating live inference and its energy cost.

What would settle it

A concrete test: take a set of lectures with known transcript errors (or introduce deliberate errors), generate explanations with the proposed pipeline, and have domain experts rate the fraction of explanations containing factual errors introduced or propagated by the transcript; if that fraction is high, the button would teach wrong content. Alternatively, a randomized experiment in which students using the button show no better comprehension than students who simply rewind could falsify the pedagogical claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that the "Huh?" button interaction—signal confusion, pause the video, receive an LLM-generated rephrasing of the last phrase grounded in the full transcript—is technically feasible today with off-the-shelf models and existing transcripts. The proof-of-concept shows that GPT-4 can produce coherent, pedagogically reasonable explanations of the last sentence in transcripts from computer science, biology, and economics lectures, and the prototype demonstrates that pre-generated, timestamped explanations can be served as static web resources with no live model calls during operation. The paper also establishes that the linear, timestamp-dependent nature of the explanations makes the application an unusually good fit for caching and for scheduling inference during low-carbon periods, with the measured development-phase footprint being the only significant energy cost.

Load-bearing premise

The whole system assumes the video's transcript is accurate enough that rephrasing it teaches the truth; the paper reports serious auto-transcription errors and does not systematically test how often the LLM then passes those errors on to the learner.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Video platforms could add a "Huh?" button to any lecture with a transcript, offering instant rephrased explanations at scale.
Because explanations are pre-generated, the marginal cost per viewer is near zero, making the feature viable for free educational content.
The two-level explanation scheme gives a simple fallback for viewers who still do not understand the first rephrasing.
The caching pattern transfers to other linear media, such as podcasts or audiobooks, where clarification depends only on position.
A controlled study with human participants could test whether the button improves comprehension more than rewinding or subtitles.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same timestamp-cache trick could be applied to generate translations, summaries, or example-based elaborations, turning any transcripted video into a multi-perspective learning object.
The reliance on transcripts suggests a natural pipeline: improve automatic speech recognition quality first, and the button's explanations improve automatically; the paper's reported transcription errors are the main quality bottleneck.
One could test the pedagogical ceiling by comparing the button against an interactive tutor that answers follow-up questions; the cache design trades away that flexibility for cost, so the right comparison is against "rewind and rewatch," not against a full chatbot.
The carbon accounting suggests that for popular videos, pre-generating explanations in low-carbon regions could be greener than running live models per user, but the development-phase footprint (hundreds of kilograms of CO2 per video hour) still needs to be weighed against the educational benefit.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper is what it looks like: a workshop-level proof of concept for a 'Huh?' button that rephrases and explains the transcript segment a viewer just heard. That is genuinely new as an interaction pattern, and the authors did real engineering work. They built a JavaScript plugin, pre-generated two-level explanations at five-second intervals, shipped a demo and a Jupyter notebook, and actually measured the carbon cost of the offline GPT-4 calls. The caching idea is sensible and honestly reported. All of that deserves credit.

The soft spot is bigger than a missing user study. The prototype promises that a viewer can signal confusion 'at any time,' but the implementation only shows explanations that were pre-generated on a five-second grid, and the prompt tells the model to 'take the last sentence of this text which ends with a full stop.' If the viewer presses mid-sentence, or if the grid cuts inside a sentence, the system explains the last complete sentence from before the confusing fragment. That is not an edge case; it is the central use case, and the paper's own Figure 3a demonstrates exactly this failure. The input transcript ends with 'This file is about one' and the output skips that fragment and explains earlier material. Even with a perfect transcript, this design answers a question the viewer did not ask. The paper never reports how well press times align with the content of the explanation, and it acknowledges the button becomes inactive wherever no explanations were pre-generated. That is a load-bearing problem, not a minor limitation.

The authors are transparent that they have not measured comprehension gains and that hallucination needs systematic assessment. Those are fair admissions, but the alignment issue is more fundamental: it determines whether the button does what it claims even before you ask whether the explanations are accurate or pedagogically effective. The positive evidence is qualitative only, and the German lecture transcript problems underscore that the pipeline is fragile.

Who gets value from this? Researchers building LLM-assisted video playback or interactive transcript tools. It is a reasonable workshop contribution that shows a working pattern and surfaces a real design constraint. I would not cite it in my own work in the next twelve months, and I would not bring it to reading group as a methodological model, but it is an honest, buildable idea that deserves a serious referee.

Recommendation: send it to peer review, but the revision needs to confront the temporal alignment problem head-on, ideally with on-demand explanation generation or timestamp-aware selection, plus a small human evaluation of whether explanations match the viewer's intended moment of confusion.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a "Huh?" button for educational videos: a viewer presses a button (or utters a keyword), playback stops, and an LLM rephrases and elaborates the last phrases of the video using the transcript as context, with repeated requests triggering simpler, broader explanations. The authors report a proof of concept on three YouTube lectures (computer science, biology, economics), implemented as a JavaScript plugin for YouTube in which explanations are pre-generated at 5-second intervals on two levels of detail and served as static HTTP resources, so no live model calls occur at runtime. Carbon emissions during pre-generation were measured with the API Emission Tracker (150.7 kg CO2e for 13 minutes 35 seconds of the English lecture, 209.4 kg CO2e for 15 minutes 35 seconds of the German lecture). The paper's stated contribution is technical feasibility; the conclusion explicitly defers human-subject evaluation and systematic hallucination and accuracy assessment to future work.

Significance. The contribution is a working prototype plus a reproducible experiment: the Jupyter notebook and the two online demos make the core pipeline easy to inspect and rerun, and the carbon accounting in Section V is concrete, measured with a public tracker and transparent about token counts. The caching idea is the strongest part of the paper: since explanations depend only on a timestamp and are identical for all users, pre-generation with HTTP-only serving is a sensible architectural pattern for LLM-assisted linear video. If the temporal-alignment problem is fixed and a human-subject study confirms that viewers find the explanations useful, the intervention would be cheap to deploy on top of existing lecture videos. At present, however, the measured evidence is limited to execution feasibility: transcript quality is acknowledged as poor, output accuracy is explicitly deferred, and the displayed examples are self-selected, so the significance is conditional on the revision addressing the alignment and evidence gaps.

major comments (4)

[Section IV and Figure 3a] The combination of pre-generation on a fixed 5-second grid and the prompt instruction to 'take the last sentence of this text which ends with a full stop' produces a systematic temporal mismatch between what the user just heard and what the LLM explains. If the button is pressed mid-sentence, or if the 5-second boundary falls inside a sentence, the last complete sentence is an earlier one, and the explanation covers material that may already be understood while the confusing fragment is ignored. Figure 3a is direct evidence: the truncated input ends with 'This file is about one,' yet the displayed output explains the preceding Tiny Shakespeare passage, not the fragment the user just heard. Because Section III promises that 'the last phrases of the video will get rephrased and explained,' this mismatch is load-bearing for the central interaction and is not acknowledged in the paper. The revision should specify the treatment of trailing incomplete fragments (for example, instructing the model to explain the fragment together with the preceding sentence, or aligning generation boundaries to sentence boundaries) and should report explanation relevance as a function of the press timestamp.
[Title, Abstract, and Section VI] The title promises 'Improving Understanding in Educational Videos,' and Section VI asserts that the approach is likely to have 'a higher effectiveness than classic rewinding,' but the paper reports no human-subject experiment, no learning-outcome measure, and no comparison with rewinding or subtitle replay. The evidence consists of a few selected outputs in Figure 3, and the Section VI admission that 'a more rigorous study with human participants' is needed confirms that the effectiveness claim is currently unsubstantiated. The authors should either restrict the title and the effectiveness statements to what is demonstrated (technical feasibility with plausible outputs) or add a small human evaluation, such as comprehension-quiz performance or self-reported understanding, comparing the button with plain rewinding.
[Section III versus Section IV] The interaction is advertised as available 'at anytime' (Section III), but the implemented prototype is not: Section IV states that 'explanations were only generated for subsets of the videos' and that 'when no explanations are available, the button assumes an inactive state,' and Section V shows that only 13 minutes 35 seconds of the English lecture and 15 minutes 35 seconds of the German lecture were annotated. The phrase 'scalability' in Section IV is likewise in tension with partial coverage. The revision should align the claims with the implemented availability, either by covering full videos or by explicitly presenting the prototype as operating on annotated segments.
[Section IV and Section VI] The feasibility evidence rests on favorable examples chosen by the authors, and the manuscript itself flags the central limitations: Section IV reports 'serious transcription errors' and reduced quality for the German lecture, punctuation is added heuristically by GPT-4, and Section VI defers systematic accuracy and hallucination assessment. Because generated explanations inherit transcript errors, the proof of concept shows that the pipeline executes but does not yet show that explanations are reliable across arbitrary videos and truncation points. These limitations should be stated in the abstract or introduction rather than only in the conclusion, and the examples in Figure 3 should be labeled as selected illustrations rather than representative results.

minor comments (5)

[Section VI] The phrase 'millions of one videos' in the conclusion appears to be a typo for 'millions of online videos,' and the abstract's 'supporting to close knowledge gaps' is grammatically awkward; both should be fixed in revision.
[Section V] The carbon-footprint statement would be more informative with amortization or comparison math: for example, the number of generated explanations implied by the 5-second grid (roughly 160 and 190 timestamps at two detail levels each for the two lectures) is not reported, and no comparison against live per-user generation is given, so the claim that the approach reduces the footprint 'significantly' is not quantified.
[Section IV] The choice of one versus two sentences as the explanation scope is motivated only as 'reasonable results'; a small qualitative comparison between the two levels, or a stated criterion for selecting the levels, would make the design easier to assess.
[Section IV] The German philosophy lecture used in the prototype is not identified by its URL, unlike the three English lectures in footnote 2, which would make reproduction easier.
[References] Several reference entries contain spacing and capitalization artifacts (for example, 'Y . V .' and 'J. W. , Pellegrino' in [3], and 'statista' in [21]); a pass with a citation manager would clean these up.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper proposes a proof-of-concept interaction and evaluates feasibility through demos and qualitative examples, with no fitted parameters or derived predictions that reduce to their inputs.

full rationale

This paper is a design proposal and proof-of-concept, not a derivation. Its central claim is that an LLM can rephrase and explain the last part of a video transcript when a user signals confusion, and that a prototype can pre-generate these explanations. There are no equations, no fitted parameters, and no quantitative claims that are later 'predicted' from the same data. The prompt explicitly instructs the model to 'Take the last sentence of this text which ends with a full stop, and explain it in your own words', and the outputs are presented as exemplary results in Figure 3 rather than as statistically validated findings. The authors openly state limitations: 'despite some serious transcription errors' and 'the accuracy of the output needs to be assessed more systematically, considering the problem of hallucinations of LLMs.' These are empirical validity concerns, not circularity. The only self-referential aspect is that the authors judged their own generated examples as promising, which is an evidence-quality weakness, not a logical reduction of a claimed result to its input. There is also no load-bearing self-citation: references are to external works and data sources. Therefore, the paper contains no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on domain assumptions about transcript quality and pedagogical benefit, plus two hand-chosen implementation parameters (5-second interval and two-sentence context). No numerical model parameters are fitted, and no new physical or explanatory entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)

explanation time interval = 5 seconds
Explanations were generated at fixed 5-second intervals in the prototype; the paper notes the optimal text length remains an open question, so this is an ad hoc implementation choice.
second-level context window = last two sentences
The second-level explanations consider the last two sentences rather than one; this was chosen by hand to provide broader context and is not derived from data.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption YouTube transcripts provide sufficiently accurate textual grounding for LLM explanations
The proof of concept relies on downloaded transcripts with added punctuation; the authors report serious transcription errors, especially for the German lecture.
domain assumption Pausing a video and reading a rephrased explanation supports comprehension at least as well as rewinding
The pedagogical benefit is assumed from the rephrasing literature; no user study measures comprehension.
domain assumption Precomputed explanations generated offline from entire transcripts remain appropriate at each 5-second playback point
The prototype pre-generates explanations, so the content cannot adapt to the user's specific misunderstanding; this is acknowledged as future work.
domain assumption LLM explanations are factually accurate and free of hallucinations
The paper states accuracy and hallucinations need systematic assessment in future work.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The "Huh?" Button: Improving Understanding in Educational Videos with Large Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QHSIQA43

@misc{pith2026241214201,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The "Huh?" Button: Improving Understanding in Educational Videos with Large Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QHSIQA43}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14201}
}

read the original abstract

We propose a simple way to use large language models (LLMs) in education. Specifically, our method aims to improve individual comprehension by adding a novel feature to online videos. We combine the low threshold for interactivity in digital experiences with the benefits of rephrased and elaborated explanations typical of face-to-face interactions, thereby supporting to close knowledge gaps at scale. To demonstrate the technical feasibility of our approach, we conducted a proof-of-concept experiment and implemented a prototype which is available for testing online. Through the use case, we also show how caching can be applied in LLM-powered applications to reduce their carbon footprint.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14201 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The "Huh?" button1 in action: a method to improve the individual understanding of viewers of video lectures amount of content uploaded to YouTube every minute exceeding 500 hours [22], it can be inferred that millions of videos featuring educational or tutorial material are accessible on this online video sharing platform. Currently, the prevailing method for enhancing comprehension whilst viewing such content invo… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Proposed method for enhancing a recorded video lec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Exemplary results from analyzing three online lectures : The first row includes the video transcription up to the user’s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Screenshot of the implemented "Huh?" button, inte [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

[1]

Education technology: An evidence-based review,

M. Escueta, V . Quan, A. J. Nickow, and P. Oreopoulos, “Education technology: An evidence-based review,” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 23744, August 2017. [Online]. Available: http://www.nber.org/papers/w23744

work page 2017
[2]

State of the art and practice in ai in education,

W. Holmes and I. Tuomi, “State of the art and practice in ai in education,” European Journal of Education , vol. 57, 10 2022

work page 2022
[3]

Applying machine learning in science assessment: a systematic review,

X. Zhai, Y . Yin, J. W. , Pellegrino, K. C. Haudek, and L. Shi, “Applying machine learning in science assessment: a systematic review,” Studies in Science Education , vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 111–151, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2020.1735757

work page arXiv 2020
[4]

Ai-based personalized e-learning systems: Issues, challenges, and so- lutions,

M. Murtaza, Y . Ahmed, J. A. Shamsi, F. Sherwani, and M. Usman, “Ai-based personalized e-learning systems: Issues, challenges, and so- lutions,” IEEE Access, 2022

work page 2022
[5]

Revolutionizing education: harnessing the power of artificial intelligence for personalized learning,

M. P. Pratama, R. Sampelolo, and H. Lura, “Revolutionizing education: harnessing the power of artificial intelligence for personalized learning,” Klasikal: Journal of Education, Language Teaching and Science , vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 350–357, 2023

work page 2023
[6]

Chat- bot for education system,

G. Hiremath, A. Hajare, P. Bhosale, R. Nanaware, and K. Wagh, “Chat- bot for education system,” International Journal of Advance Research, Ideas and Innovations in Technology , vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 37–43, 2018

work page 2018
[7]

Chatbot: An education support system for student,

F. Clarizia, F. Colace, M. Lombardi, F. Pascale, and D. Santaniello, “Chatbot: An education support system for student,” in Cyberspace Safety and Security: 10th International Symposium, CSS 2018, Amalfi, Italy, October 29–31, 2018, Proceedings 10 . Springer, 2018, pp. 291– 302

work page 2018
[8]

Barriers to adopting emerging technologies in education,

P. L. Rogers, “Barriers to adopting emerging technologies in education,” Journal of Educational Computing Research , vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 455–472, 2000. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.2190/ 4UJE-B6VW-A30N-MCE5

work page

Show all 28 references

[9]

Ed tech’s failure during the pandemic, and what comes after,

J. Reich, “Ed tech’s failure during the pandemic, and what comes after,” Phi Delta Kappan , vol. 102, no. 6, pp. 20–24, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721721998149

2021 doi
[10]

D. Mahbub. (2024) Why does edtech fail? 25 problems in edtech. [Accessed 15-02-2024]. [Online]. Available: https://digitalmahbub.com/ why-does-edtech-fail/

2024
[11]

Student perceptions of ai-generated avatars in teaching business ethics: We might not be impressed,

C. Vallis, S. Wilson, D. Gozman, and J. Buchanan, “Student perceptions of ai-generated avatars in teaching business ethics: We might not be impressed,” Postdigital Science and Education , pp. 1–19, 06 2023

2023
[12]

Youtube in the classroom: Helpful tips and student perceptions

B. K. Fleck, L. M. Beckman, J. L. Sterns, and H. D. Hussey, “Youtube in the classroom: Helpful tips and student perceptions.” Journal of Effective Teaching, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 21–37, 2014

2014
[13]

Using youtube: Strategies for using new media in teaching and learning,

P. Duffy, “Using youtube: Strategies for using new media in teaching and learning,” in Enhancing learning through technology: research on emerging technologies and pedagogies . World Scientific, 2008, pp. 31–43

2008
[14]

The impact of youtube videos on the student’s learning,

Y . Chtouki, H. Harroud, M. Khalidi, and S. Bennani, “The impact of youtube videos on the student’s learning,” in 2012 International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET), 2012, pp. 1–4

2012
[15]

An assessment of faculty usage of youtube as a teaching resource,

S. C. Burke, S. Snyder, and R. C. Rager, “An assessment of faculty usage of youtube as a teaching resource,” Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice , vol. 7, no. 1, p. 8, 2009

2009
[16]

Large scale deep neural network acoustic modeling with semi-supervised training data for youtube video transcription,

H. Liao, E. McDermott, and A. Senior, “Large scale deep neural network acoustic modeling with semi-supervised training data for youtube video transcription,” in 2013 IEEE Workshop on Automatic Speech Recognition and Understanding, 2013, pp. 368–373

2013
[17]

Towards automatic detection of misinformation in online medical videos,

R. Hou, V . Perez-Rosas, S. Loeb, and R. Mihalcea, “Towards automatic detection of misinformation in online medical videos,” in 2019 International Conference on Multimodal Interaction , ser. ICMI ’19. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2020, p. 235–243. [...

2019
[18]

Lectys: A system for summarizing lecture videos on youtube,

T. Yoo, H. Jeong, D. Lee, and H. Jung, “Lectys: A system for summarizing lecture videos on youtube,” in Companion Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces , ser. IUI ’21 Companion. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, ...

2021
[19]

Students’ learning conceptions and their interpretation of significant educational concepts,

E. J. Van Rossum, R. Deijkers, and R. Hamer, “Students’ learning conceptions and their interpretation of significant educational concepts,” Higher Education, vol. 14, pp. 617–641, 1985

1985
[20]

Problems of understanding in class- rooms: Students’ use of clarifying tactics,

W. L. Kendrick and A. L. Darling, “Problems of understanding in class- rooms: Students’ use of clarifying tactics,” Communication Education , vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 15–29, 1990

1990
[21]

(2024) Most popular video content type worldwide in 3rd quarter 2023

statista. (2024) Most popular video content type worldwide in 3rd quarter 2023. [Accessed 15-02-2024]. [Online]. Available: https://www. statista.com/statistics/1254810/top-video-content-type-by-global-reach/

2024
[22]

(2024) Youtube by the numbers

YouTube. (2024) Youtube by the numbers. [Accessed 16-02-2024]. [Online]. Available: https://blog.youtube/press/

2024
[23]

Anchoring your bridge: the importance of paraphrasing to inference making in self-explanations,

D. McNamara, N. Newton, K. Christhilf, K. McCarthy, J. Magliano, and L. Allen, “Anchoring your bridge: the importance of paraphrasing to inference making in self-explanations,” Discourse Processes, vol. 60, no. 4-5, pp. 337–362, 2023, publisher Copyright: © 2023 Taylor & Franc...

2023
[24]

Language models are few-shot learners,

T. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. D. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell, S. Agarwal, A. Herbert-V oss, G. Krueger, T. Henighan, R. Child, A. Ramesh, D. Ziegler, J. Wu, C. Winter, C. Hesse, M. Chen, E. Sigler, M. Litwin, S. Gray, B. Ch...

2020
[25]

Gpt-4 technical report,

OpenAI, “Gpt-4 technical report,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https: //cdn.openai.com/papers/gpt-4.pdf

2023
[26]

Power hungry pro- cessing: Watts driving the cost of ai deployment?

A. S. Luccioni, Y . Jernite, and E. Strubell, “Power hungry pro- cessing: Watts driving the cost of ai deployment?” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16863, 2023

2023 arXiv
[27]

Karpathy

A. Karpathy. (2023) Let’s build GPT: from scratch, in code, spelled out. [Accessed 15-09-2024]. [Online]. Available: https: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCc8FmEb1nY

2023
[1901]

Available: https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/ paper/2020/file/1457c0d6bfcb4967418bfb8ac142f64a-Paper.pdf

[Online]. Available: https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/ paper/2020/file/1457c0d6bfcb4967418bfb8ac142f64a-Paper.pdf

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Education technology: An evidence-based review,

M. Escueta, V . Quan, A. J. Nickow, and P. Oreopoulos, “Education technology: An evidence-based review,” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 23744, August 2017. [Online]. Available: http://www.nber.org/papers/w23744

work page 2017

[2] [2]

State of the art and practice in ai in education,

W. Holmes and I. Tuomi, “State of the art and practice in ai in education,” European Journal of Education , vol. 57, 10 2022

work page 2022

[3] [3]

Applying machine learning in science assessment: a systematic review,

X. Zhai, Y . Yin, J. W. , Pellegrino, K. C. Haudek, and L. Shi, “Applying machine learning in science assessment: a systematic review,” Studies in Science Education , vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 111–151, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2020.1735757

work page arXiv 2020

[4] [4]

Ai-based personalized e-learning systems: Issues, challenges, and so- lutions,

M. Murtaza, Y . Ahmed, J. A. Shamsi, F. Sherwani, and M. Usman, “Ai-based personalized e-learning systems: Issues, challenges, and so- lutions,” IEEE Access, 2022

work page 2022

[5] [5]

Revolutionizing education: harnessing the power of artificial intelligence for personalized learning,

M. P. Pratama, R. Sampelolo, and H. Lura, “Revolutionizing education: harnessing the power of artificial intelligence for personalized learning,” Klasikal: Journal of Education, Language Teaching and Science , vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 350–357, 2023

work page 2023

[6] [6]

Chat- bot for education system,

G. Hiremath, A. Hajare, P. Bhosale, R. Nanaware, and K. Wagh, “Chat- bot for education system,” International Journal of Advance Research, Ideas and Innovations in Technology , vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 37–43, 2018

work page 2018

[7] [7]

Chatbot: An education support system for student,

F. Clarizia, F. Colace, M. Lombardi, F. Pascale, and D. Santaniello, “Chatbot: An education support system for student,” in Cyberspace Safety and Security: 10th International Symposium, CSS 2018, Amalfi, Italy, October 29–31, 2018, Proceedings 10 . Springer, 2018, pp. 291– 302

work page 2018

[8] [8]

Barriers to adopting emerging technologies in education,

P. L. Rogers, “Barriers to adopting emerging technologies in education,” Journal of Educational Computing Research , vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 455–472, 2000. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.2190/ 4UJE-B6VW-A30N-MCE5

work page