We deal with trends. Not a learning system nor tech alone. Not due to tech stacks either. I’m talking about day-to-day life. I had a trend occur just over a week ago. An accident, fall if you will, with the probability that I would hit my head, and score another concussion (which would have been number four in two years). Thankfully that didn’t happen. What did? A bruised bone on my writing had, right on the top and bottom of the wrist. Anyone who has had this can attest to the limited things you can do and how something so simple as brushing your teeth requires patience and fear that your toothpaste will result in pain as it touches your wrist.

A foot boot appeared as well. I seem to see this trend of accidents such as these ending in a boot for a few months. If you have ever had the delight of the said boot and the injury or injuries to your ankle or foot (in my case), you will know this trend post-effect, okay, ongoing very well.

When these injuries occur, especially the bruised bone one (requiring a hand and wrist guard), the probability of writing your blog that week or doing work or whatever that requires the use of that hand, falls by the wayside. I decided to use the voice narration option in Word, and elsewhere. This repetitive option (for me) has shown that it is, once again, a work in progress. Nobody can sit there and go “next line,” “period”, “comma”, and so forth while trying to write. Words become a jumbled mess – try it sometime when messaging via the phone – and see if the person who received it can figure out all the words. It makes Wordle seem like an amateur.

With this post, I did the one thing my doctor (hand) told me not to do – remove the guard and use the hand. I tried to stay with the guard while working yesterday and went nowhere. The voice, once attempted, reared its head – did I mention a trend? – and failed. I think quickly, and the idea that I can say “period” is incomprehensible, given how anyone can just speak and roll.

This whole episode has taught me two things (excluding those listed above).

• Any learning system or learning technology or authoring tool – must have a voice narration capability – not just a text-to-audio for the content, but also what I see as a “do this” is the ability for an end-user to move around the system by using their voice. “Open course X.” “Start the recommended playlist’s first course.” “Scroll down and click on the calendar. Click on Tuesday. Click on available time.” “Register me.” No system does this. Sure the majority are ADA508 compliant or similar (I always forget what that is). However, not all of them are, and secondly, when it comes to the voice moving around and taking content within the system – navigation and so on – it’s not there. It should be. It can be if a vendor either built it into their system OR tapped into LAM (which is what takes a gen AI further – which you are unaware of, but it exists and is another AI option. OR tap into machine learning (again AI).
• When seeing the prompt window on the learner side or admin side, provide your clients with “recommended,” or “top 50 prompt modifiers,” and so on. On top of that, allow someone to say it, and then it is typed in, and they say “click,” and the response shows up. Today, it is all click, click by using your hand.

My gut says that it is beyond rare for a company that has already implemented whatever LLM they selected to provide those recommended prompts to use, prompt modifiers, and the best way to acquire the information they need or want. I say this because the infamous “our client never asked for this pitch, vendors love to say” will ensure you that the probability of it being added with said vendor drops significantly. To offset it, requires you – either the current client or considering the system or tech client to say you want this. If that vendor gets enough people saying it, they will likely do it – especially, and this is sad to say, but in reality, those clients are from very large companies. Say F500 or F50. Or if you have a lot of folks using the system OR you are paying quite a lot (over 100K for some vendors, others it has to cross the 500K threshold) for usage.

On the other hand, there will be vendors who will explore this and either go, “Yeah, that makes sense,” and put it on a roadmap sooner rather than later. And yes, there will be others that go, “Yeah, that makes sense, but we need to finish creating this AI for assessment tool because everyone else is doing it.”

Trend 1 – It’s AI

It’s as simple as that. Wait, it’s somewhat simple because I am already seeing the pitches as “first vendor to use AI,” “we offer AI or have it in our system,” and then failing to note that they either started with machine learning (yes, it is AI but built on an algorithm by said vendor), or they are still using machine learning.

You, on the other hand, are assuming when they say AI that it is this ChatGPT thing – i.e., generative AI. The only way to get clarity is you have to ask the vendor. Never assume that everything you see in their system that they say is using AI, is Gen AI only.

TIP – Craig’s Approach

Look a tip with trend. It’s like a hot fudge on a sundae.

• When I hear the vendor say they have AI – I ask them immediately if it is machine learning, gen AI or a combo of both (it can be)
• If the vendor says combo or they may say it depends on what the capability is – then find out. I can easily spot something and go that machine learning because it looks like it is – so far, I’m 100% accurate (knocks on wood table). I wouldn’t expect you to be unless you see a lot of these or know AI and can spot the difference between the two.

I will ask what features they are using in machine learning (if they say Gen AI or AI and machine learning, the AI part being Gen AI which is built on an LLM). If the vendor says it is built only with Gen AI or AI (vendors love to say the latter, ignoring the first part), I want to know

• I want to know what LLM they are using, or if they say we use multiple, which ones. Is it relevant to you?

Absolutely. Each LLM isn’t the same. GPT 4.5 (now called Turbo) is faster than GPT-4 (which has become the freebie, so the original ChatGPT). Some LLMs are better with URL links than others. Each one will have different parameters. Some are better at math equations than others. The math equation is a frequent approach when testing an LLM.

There are so many LLMs out there it is hard to keep up unless you need to do so – to stay ahead of the masses or to stay current (I do both). And while every LLM will produce hallucinations (even with your own private content – I can’t stress this enough because people still think hallucinations or, in layperson’s terms – fake or false information), there is so much variance. Let’s take a brief stroll in what LLMs I am seeing over and over again.

• GPT Turbo, aka GPT 4.5, is the latest version of GPT. It is fee-based. Folks on enterprise with OpenAI, you are using Turbo. There are vendors using 4.5, which is good. The downside? Token fees. Sure, they are low now because, overwhelmingly, the vendors using Gen AI have it on the admin side—create courses/content, identify skills, and create assessments with AI.
• GPT 3.5 did far better than 3, the freebie of ChatGPT. Folks who were on 3.5 are tapping into 4 (whichever version still has a lower token fee), and others are going into 4.5.
• OpenAI – the makers of the above LLMs – dominates. It is not even close in our industry. Number two is Azure’s LLM which is built on Open AI’s version.
• Llama 2 – 100% free open source, which means no token fees. Llama 3 just rolled it and Meta claims it is as good as GPT Turbo. It’s also 100% free open source. Vendors that go this route, take this LLM and do a lot with it. I do know of vendors that tapped into LLama.
• Google Cloud—Model Garden requires you to use Vertex ML, and then you can select from a variety of Gen AI LLMs.

With Model Garden, you can choose from three types. I should note that OpenAI has a version that is already pre-trained and similar to option three—and yes, I know of a vendor who uses said version. (text on Model Garden from Google’s website.

• Foundation model – Pretrained multitask large models that can be tuned or customized for specific tasks using Vertex AI Studio, Vertex AI API, and the Vertex AI SDK for Python.
• Fine Tuneable model – Models that you can fine-tune using a custom notebook or pipeline.
• Task specific solutions – Most of these prebuilt models are ready to use. Many can be customized using your own data.

Again, at least one vendor on the OpenAI side is using the last one. The latter is popular for obvious reasons—across the board, especially if you lack in-house AI experts or have the folks needed for options one (huge) or two. I do know of vendors that do option two, again, not with Google, though.

Claude from Anthropic (which has received capital from Amazon and Google, just to name two) – launched a couple of weeks ago; Claude three with their latest options – Sonnet, Haiku, and Opus (the best and most powerful of them). I know of one vendor, 3rd party content provider that has Gen AI in their system – and outputs it to your system of choice – that uses Claude.

The downside to Claude is that you cannot generate images. However, the latest version is supposed to surpass GPT Turbo. On the flip side, it can review and summarize a large PDF file (the test I saw was 48 pages) faster than Turbo.

As you can tell, this trend of AI isn’t as simple as you think. The flip side to all of this is the amount of capital being raised by various AI solutions (including a couple of LLMs – not listed above) that haven’t launched a product yet (some of it’s going on for two years). Others recently have had to downsize – Jasper, a popular one for the ability to change the LLM based on your use case. Jasper is intriguing because the premise opens up possibilities but Gen AI isn’t cheap.

Trend 2 – Computing Power – Energy Impact and Learning System and Tech vendors who are unaware

• It requires a lot of computing power – which is why you are seeing small LLMs that can go from a mobile device, with minimal computer power. For the Open AI and others, though, those computers – and the power it is creating a massive carbon footprint – are higher than anything on the cryptocurrency side.
• To cool the machines down, you use water—a lot of it. Since water is crucial nowadays more so than ever before, yeah, I’d say this is relevant.

I am surprised—look at another trend in the number of vendors who use AI in their system (not machine learning) and have no idea. You would think someone would investigate this, especially when it is noted in so many places. Yet, nope, it’s not happening.

This is why it’s surprising that vendors haven’t looked at Small LLMs (and there are quite a few out there, with more coming—Microsoft is one such vendor that created one).

Trend 3 AI popularity with certain capabilities

If the vendor is all in with AI (what is feasible today), then the following are the ones I see the most (and often a vendor will say – “we are the only vendor who can do this,” – sorry you are not).

• Create courses/content (I refer to it as a content creator tool, vendors will say authoring tool) – Only one I’ve seen today is robust, whereas an ID person could use it to a point. With synthetic audio, materials too. The rest is headers (I prefer Chapter titles), then pages (they call it something else), and in some cases, content within those items – more often than not, actually. A few have the WYSIWYG window, and in quite a few cases, you can change the text by choosing (professional, witty, serious, and so on). Other vendors use the emoji angle. I wish I could remember what one vendor had as an option with the text change. It was so demeaning, and offensive that I called them out and stated such. I need to go back to my notes and find the vendor, then see if they fixed it. My guess? Nope.
• Create an assessment with Gen AI. I’ve Seen it a lot. This is the one I hear. You haven’t seen this before, spin. I see a lot of systems, so yeah, I have. Some are better than others.
• Identify skills that can be presented on the learner side with AI. These skills can be tied to systems that allow the opportunities aspect in their system, or someone uploads their resume, and it takes out key items and lists the skills. I am starting to see vendors tie skills directly with content initially using Gen AI. Equally, I see machine learning with the recommended content/course angle, which looks skewed more often than not due to the algorithm.
• A couple of vendors are launching or have launched a prompt window on the learner side. The learner can ask questions or statements and the window responds with the answer or supposedly answer. Yes, it can be wrong – hence, always verify before just thinking, “Yeah, this is right, ” and roll on.
• There is no prompt window either on the admin side or the learner side, whereas if the information that was outputted was wrong, the person can state so and put in the correct retort. AI learns from itself, so if you are not saying this is wrong, then surprise – it assumes it is right. I continue to be stunned that zero vendors are doing this. Every LLM you test out, heck go to the freebie one, has this window.
• Minimal vendors add the text that the system may output mistakes (a term I see in vendor land) or fake or false information, so review. I’ve seen this text in only a few vendors. As noted, a couple told me they had clients who wanted it removed. That is like saying, “jump out of the airplane, and what? We didn’t teach you how to open it and when. Don’t worry, nothing will happen to you.”

Trend 4 – Embrace new learning technology

Embracing new technology in their learning systems can bring about tangible benefits. There’s a wealth of learning tech available, even SaaS-based authoring tools (not new tech), that vendors often overlook. Take Bongo, for instance, the Product of the Year for 2023. It’s a perfect fit for today’s market, offering a coaching aspect, skills development component with not only AI capabilities but also face to face role playing, and even a credentialing piece. These components, when integrated effectively, can enhance the learning experience, improve skills development, and provide valuable credentials. This practical approach to learning technology can enlighten your understanding of its potential.   

I see so many systems that lack a role-playing component with F2F that does all these other items. I do see some vendors offering bits of it or including a variance, and a few doing precisely the same thing. The difference to me? One vendor’s business model is specific for that solution, and the other has many things they need to do constantly; okay, depending on their roadmap, they can only focus on one. 

One vendor out in the market is creating a way for folks who use a droid for training to push the data the droid collects into the LMS to provide insight to the client. I know of another vendor who has also mentioned the droid concept, but the first vendor is much further ahead. 

They already have achieved the data angle with XR (AR and VR) with one client and plan to expand further—the client was in manufacturing, and this was for folks on the floor. Their AI capabilities as it relates to use cases are very intriguing. I plan to do a product review of the system in June. It’s not a big vendor or well-known, but it’s cutting-edge-driven.  

Yes, there are systems that are all about VR, AR, and so on—and if you lack the headset, you can see it on a mobile device—which sort of defeats the purpose, but anyway, let’s roll with it. 

Vendors who want to tap into new technology – learning tech or otherwise- should go deep integrations. The vendors who leverage this quite a bit are ahead of others regarding their roadmap and what they need to develop. Think this way – creating this or that on your roadmap costs money and time. Plus, those resources (people). If you can streamline this by tapping into certain vendors for deep integration into your system (the client never knows), why wouldn’t you?  

Trend 5

Content marketplaces

Some vendors refer to them as eLearning marketplace (ignoring the proper way: e-Learning). Others may say course market, content market or some other item that catches the eye – for the client.

Depending on the vendor, you may get the content marketplace – and thus all the content or you pick what content you want – and it goes into the system. None of the content is free. I’ve seen one exception, and they hide the cost. When you rumble into a marketplace for courses, you are leveraging and tapping into the following (which you should see as a benefit)

• The content: The client selects what they want and by what publisher/provider and identifies the number of seats they need (licenses) for that specific content. The seats, by the way, do not have to match all your user base—this content is for this group and only for these folks.  
• Depending on the vendor, you will see many different third-party providers, minimal, or, yes, I can’t believe I am saying this in 2024: zero.  
• The plus for you is that you are not required to go to the internet and type in some words, hoping to see what content is ideal for you. Nor should you type this into Gemini (formally known as Bard) or Copilot and similar for search engines. They all scour the web and pull down quite a bit of those worthless top 10s written by someone who has no background in the industry but loves van travel. All of these, those top 10, are affiliates of the vendor. Yes, they make money off you. You will see this with the “we may receive a small commission.” 
• The benefit is to go to the content marketplace with your vendor and see what content is available based on your use or use cases.   
• Vendors should consider adding more content providers, especially those that are reliable and can filter out the junk that’s prevalent on the internet. This way, if a client already has a trusted content provider, the integration is already in place, eliminating the need for additional work that may or may not be successful. There are plenty of learning systems out there that have content/course aggregators, such as GO1 and OpenSesame. I often hear that both are the same and have the same publishers. That isn’t the case. There are pros and cons to each of the above. I like OpenSesame (yes, that is the vendor with the built-in AI, and OS will work directly with your client to identify their use cases, and what content is best suited for that). Thus, the idea that you get all this content with a subscription plan – think all you can-eat aspect – is eliminated. OS is one of many vendors that do this. Content Anytime from Cornerstone does, too – but CA is only for Cornerstone clients. OS and GO1 can be used by anybody, regardless of the system. 

TIP

Never assume that a vendor who says they are an LXP has more content publishers than, say, an LMS vendor. I have yet to see any correlation between the two types, let alone LXP vs. Learning Platform. It all comes down to the vendor, not the type of system per se. 

Trend 6 – All hands on deck – Pricing Wave is coming

It is not so much as ‘coming’, rather it is here, and will it be just a slight wave where I can get on my surfboard for a nice day at the beach OR everyone run for their lives, Godzilla is right behind us – running for her life (Yes, Godzilla is female).

The problem with this trend is that it isn’t limited to learning system vendors, learning technology vendors, authoring tools, or third-party course publishers (even aggregators).

The attitude of price high, then we know procurement will reduce the fee or we will negotiate the fee with the client – is a horrible idea. Yet it is still in place with those said vendors, and there are a lot more vendors angling this way. Forgetting that a client will base their decision (or should) on whether they can afford the system to begin with. I see folks who will reduce the seat numbers (even though they need more and want more) so they can get the system. That’s similar to saying, “Oh, I can’t afford this car, unless I remove cruise control, power windows, and the spare tire.” Extra necessities!

The number of vendors (overall, and yes, plenty of exceptions who do not do this) has increased their pricing compared to 2023. They need to pay attention to all the financial indicators globally, including inflation, potential recession in some countries, and, in the UK, serious GDP numbers – not in a plus way. I always wondered why Americans think inflation is only in this country, and if it exists elsewhere, it can’t be higher (yes, it can – just talk to our friends over in the UK). I won’t go into the economics of why and how this began, but getting back to the vendor pricing, it is clear they need to pay attention to the signs.   

Yes, you will see a list price (think retail), and a vendor will come down, or they won’t. If they do, the discounts can be minimal. I know of one vendor who increased their fees due to inflation. Never buy a system that states their pricing is higher due to inflation or that, yes, you are a client, but you need to pay extra due to inflation. I wasn’t aware that the vendor’s HQ is Fantasy Island.

The pricing isn’t limited to the smaller size audiences either, it scales up even on the Enterprise and Large Enterprise numbers. Rule of thumb – the more users you have the lower the price point per user per month is. Sure they may have a range behind the scenes (common), but if you are at 25,000 “active users” and your price point per user is $25 a seat – hello, I’d like to welcome you to our newest ride here on Fantasy Island – Ripoff Wild Rafting!

The increases in pricing are not limited to learning systems; no, it is with 3rd party content/course publishers. There are systems whose fees are lower than the 3rd party content you want to add to the system (that is in their marketplace or being brought in by someone you use who is not in their marketplace). 3rd party publisher usage has grown exponentially post-COVID, and you think that now more than ever, pricing should be more attainable. Yet, it just isn’t. Plus, it is not limited to third-party publishers; nope – even aggregators are in that mix. 

Bottom Line

I’ll stop at Trend Six. I could easily go into Trend 20. I am holding off because typing with a bruised bone in my wrist is no longer attainable without pain. I guess that is a trend of mine.

People are telling me, after reading this post, that I shouldn’t have written it due to my injury.

My retort?

Thank G-D I didn’t try to do with voice narration.

Because what you would see wouldn’t be the above, rather it would be a few accurate words and Jumble, the game in newspapers that will frustrate you, within

10 Seconds.

E-Learning 24/7