A few weeks ago, I wrote about using ChatGPT to streamline instructional design at Quest Education Group. By leveraging structured prompts and empowering subject-matter experts (SMEs) to generate content themselves, we managed to create high-quality eLearning modules efficiently and collaboratively. That process, however, required a lot of strategic thinking and human oversight to ensure the results were creative, learner-centered, and pedagogically sound.

A few months ago, Articulate gave me a free trial of their new AI features, but I was too busy to take advantage. So when I got an email about a second free trial for Articulate Rise’s new AI features, which promise to automate many aspects of instructional design, I set aside some time to go through their training course and test it myself. Could these tools achieve what I had done with ChatGPT but with even greater efficiency? The fact that they are integrated directly into the software does seem promising — at the very least, it could save time copying/pasting.

After testing them, the answer was clear: not really. While Articulate’s AI might be useful in certain scenarios, it falls far short of enabling high-quality instructional design and risks producing an overwhelming amount of mediocre training content.

What Articulate’s AI Promises to Do

Articulate Rise’s AI tools aim to automate various aspects of eLearning development, including:

1.Content Creation: AI can generate text for lessons, quizzes, and summaries.

2.Image Generation: Allows users to create custom visuals tailored to their eLearning scenarios.

3.Rapid Editing: Inline tools promise to help refine text and swap out content blocks seamlessly.

These features are designed to reduce development time and make eLearning accessible to those without an instructional design background. On paper, this sounds great. But as someone who’s worked extensively with AI in instructional design, I immediately saw cracks in the foundation.

The Difference Between ChatGPT and Articulate’s AI

My approach to ChatGPT involved thoughtful scaffolding. First, I designed a prototype that I had approved by academics, the career services team, and the CEO. Then, I crafted prompts to help automate the creation of the remaining modules within this predefined context. My SMEs used the prompts in my user’s manual to generate scripts, which I then revised with my instructional designer’s training and experience. Then, I input the finalized scripts into the authoring tool (Genially). It was a lot of copying/pasting, but in the end, saved a lot of time. In contrast, Articulate’s AI lacks this nuance. It feels like a tool built for speed rather than depth. Here are some of the key differences:

1. Context and Creativity

With ChatGPT, I could prompt for creative, thematic content (e.g., using “gamer” or “guardian” language) and get outputs that matched my instructional goals. Articulate’s AI, on the other hand, generates generic text that doesn’t feel tailored to specific audiences or contexts. For example, the knowledge checks it produces are basic recall questions that fail to engage learners meaningfully. While I tried to use similar prompts in Articulate to reproduce the gamer and guardian language of my original, I found that its production in both French and English felt very generic and Rise doesn’t allow me to create as personalized an interface as Genially.

2. Control and Oversight

In my process with ChatGPT, the AI never replaces human oversight—it’s a collaborator, not the sole creator. Articulate’s tools, by contrast, seem to encourage users to trust the AI’s outputs without critically reviewing them, which is a dangerous path in instructional design.

3. Visual Generation

Articulate’s image generation tool was one of the most frustrating aspects of the platform. For a simple prompt like “a waitress serving food to a customer in a restaurant,” the AI produced bizarre results: floating body parts, irrelevant text, and missing customers. I had a similar experience generating the Guardian character on ChatGPT for my cybersecurity modules, but I eventually managed to get something I could work with. I just had to rework it a lot in Canva before I could then put it into the authoring tool. Articulate’s goal of having everything streamlined in the authoring tool simply isn’t realistic given AI’s current limitations, in my opinion.

The Risk of Mediocre Content at Scale

My biggest concern with Articulate’s AI tools is their potential to flood the eLearning space with uninspired, mediocre training materials. Here’s why:

1.Lack of Depth: Instructional design is about more than delivering information—it’s about creating an engaging and transformative learning experience. Tools that prioritize speed over thoughtfulness undermine the learner experience. In short, information ≠ instruction!

2.Generic Outputs: Without customization or creative prompts, the content generated feels flat and impersonal. It’s the kind of training that learners skim through without retaining much, if anything.

3.Misplaced Confidence: The ease of these tools might lead non-experts to assume the outputs are “good enough,” further lowering the bar for quality instructional design.

As instructional designers, we are not just content creators—we are architects of the learning experience. Articulate’s tools seem to reduce our craft to a series of automated tasks, ignoring the nuances of pedagogy, andragogy, and learner engagement. This is a far cry from the potential I saw in ChatGPT, where AI serves as a collaborator rather than a replacement.

Final Thoughts: AI as a Collaborator, Not a Replacement

While Articulate’s tools fall short, AI itself isn’t the problem—it’s how we use it. Here are some lessons I’ve learned from working with ChatGPT that Articulate (and others) could adopt:

1.Empower Creativity, Not Automation: AI should be a tool for brainstorming and ideation, not a one-size-fits-all solution. Tools should enable designers to create unique, learner-centered experiences.

2.Ensure Quality Control: AI outputs must be reviewed and refined by experts. Skipping this step results in generic, uninspired training.

3.Focus on Engagement: Instead of automating basic tasks, AI tools should prioritize creating interactive, scenario-based, and application-driven learning experiences.

4.Improve Image Reliability: Articulate’s image generation needs significant improvement. If the visuals require so much editing or replacement, they end up creating more work, not less.

Articulate Rise’s AI features are a step in the wrong direction. By prioritizing speed over depth, they risk devaluing the role of instructional designers and flooding the market with low-quality eLearning. While AI can be a powerful ally, it must be used thoughtfully and strategically.

The future of instructional design should not be about churning out mediocre content faster. It should be about creating meaningful, engaging learning experiences that make a difference. If AI is going to play a role in that future, it must be as a collaborator, not a replacement.

What do you think about AI tools like these? Do they help or hinder the instructional design process? I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments.