Welcome to AI4Reading Discussions!

[stevenijacobs]

Welcome!

We’re using Discussions as a place to connect with other members of our community. We hope that you:

• Ask questions you’re wondering about.
• Share ideas.
• Engage with other community members.
• Welcome others and are open-minded.

Remember that this is a community we build together!

My name is Steve Jacobs. In my role as CEO of IDEAL Group Inc., a 2002 spinoff from IDEAL at NCR Corporation, I have witnessed the evolution of IDEAL from its origins at AT&T Project Freedom and IDEAL at NCR Corporation into a leader in developing accessibility products and services. Our focus has been on supporting individuals with print disabilities, which include conditions that prevent users from reading or using standard printed material due to blindness, visual disabilities, physical limitations, neurological disabilities, cognitive disabilities, or specific learning disabilities.

To date, IDEAL’s products have reached an impressive milestone of over 35 million installations in more than 150 countries, all provided at no cost to users. For the past two and a half years, our team has been developing an innovative AI solution aimed at supporting K-20 students with neurological, cognitive, and learning disabilities, referred to as neurocognitive print disabilities. This solution is distinct in that we are using CPUs to process high-quality, peer-reviewed content rather than relying on GPUs and large language models (LLMs) to generate content algorithmically. Our experimental Content Enhancement Model ensures that the content we deliver can meet the needs we believe it can fulfill. We are conducting research using a Meta-Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct Model running on a Hugging Face server configured as follows: CPU basic 2vCPU 16GB

To clarify the differences between GPU-LLM-generated content and CPU-powered peer-reviewed content, we offer the following comparison:

• Quality Comparison: Using GPUs for LLM processing accelerates content creation, while our approach optimizes educational content delivery through CPU-powered, peer-reviewed material.
• Accountability: LLM-generated content is often limited and lacks clear references, whereas our approach ensures high accountability, with clear sources and citations provided.
• Adaptability to Diverse Learning Needs: LLMs can generate content tailored to diverse needs with specific prompts, but our method is better suited for specific learning styles based on established educational practices.
• Bias: There is potential for systemic bias in LLMs due to the nature of their training data. In contrast, our content is controlled, vetted, and therefore less prone to bias.
• Content Accuracy: LLM-generated content is prone to factual inaccuracies, whereas our approach ensures high accuracy based on peer-reviewed material.
• Contextual Relevance: LLMs often produce content with limited understanding or relevance, while our model provides highly relevant content tailored to specific learning needs.
• Cost-Effectiveness: LLM processing requires substantial computational power, making it costly. Our CPU-based approach is more cost-effective since it relies on pre-built content with lower computational demands.
• Cut-off Dates/Temporal Relevance: LLMs are constrained by outdated training data, while our content is continuously updated with current information.
• Ethical Considerations: The lack of oversight in LLMs can lead to the generation of harmful content. Our approach is ethically sound, with human oversight ensuring the integrity of the material.
• Interactivity: While LLMs can generate interactive content, they require prompt engineering. Our system can provide structured interactive content but is generally less dynamic.
• Learning Curve: LLMs present a steeper learning curve for educators, whereas our structured and straightforward content is easier to use.
• Multimodal Capabilities: LLMs are capable of generating various media types, but our model typically focuses on text and static media, though other forms can be incorporated.
• Pedagogical Soundness: LLM-generated content may not always align with educational standards. Our approach ensures strong alignment with established educational standards.
• Scalability and Maintenance: LLMs are resource-intensive and challenging to update. Our model is efficient, easy to scale, and simple to maintain.
• Security Risks: LLMs pose a high potential for data breaches, whereas our model uses vetted data, providing a secure solution.
• User Customization: LLMs offer limited customization and are more general-purpose. Our content is highly customizable and tailored to specific needs.

In summary, our AI solution, powered by CPUs and leveraging peer-reviewed content, offers a more accountable, secure, cost-effective, and pedagogically sound alternative to GPU-LLM content generation, ultimately providing better support for students with neurocognitive print disabilities.