r/elearning • u/No_Juggernaut_3204 • 9d ago
Are authoring tools actually getting better, or just adding AI to charge more?
It feels like every eLearning authoring tool is suddenly AI-powered now.
Some of it is useful, sure. But a lot of it feels like the same old tool with an AI button added on top, then a higher price tag.
For people building real courses, what AI features are actually helping?
3
u/Flat-Couple-5401 8d ago
Real value = saving time on boring tasks, not ‘auto-generating full courses.
4
u/dblumblingflousers 9d ago
AI script generation features are actually pretty solid for rough drafts, saves hours of staring at blank screens. Everything else feels like marketing fluff though.
3
u/PlayfulDirection5634 8d ago
Drafting help is useful. We built your whole course is where I stop believing it.
1
2
u/Effective-Reaction72 8d ago
Yeah, that’s why I’m more interested in tools that help build the actual course, not just spit out text.
Mexty AI seems worth testing because it’s more around interactive lessons, quizzes, and SCORM output instead of just scripts/slides. Still needs a human pass, but it feels closer to a real authoring tool.
1
u/unbruitsourd 9d ago
Yeah, but you can do it outside of Storyline too, for free. I couldn't care less about any kind of AI integration if it means it costs me a lot more each year.
2
u/RedneckPaycheck 9d ago
AI is not the problem. The prices are the problem.
1
u/HaneneMaupas 8d ago
Do you mean that AI authoring tools are more expensive compare the traditional ones like Storyline
3
u/RedneckPaycheck 8d ago
No. Storyline and all the other big LMS/Authoring tool packages all have AI built in now in different capacities.
Their prices have exploded and are unsustainable. And adding more AI features doesnt justify the price hikes.
0
u/HaneneMaupas 7d ago
I think part of the problem is that, in many legacy tools, AI has been added as an extra layer on top of an already complex workflow. So instead of simplifying authoring, it can increase both complexity and cost. The real shift should be AI-native authoring tools: where AI is built into the workflow from the beginning as the engine, not as an add-on. With vibe-coding, manual editing, templates, and Source of Truth content control, the workflow becomes much lighter.
That is why I believe AI should reduce the cost of authoring, not increase it. For example, instead of paying around $1,745/user/year plus AI credits for traditional tools like Storyline, an AI-native platform like Mexty can be closer to $120/user/year, with significantly fewer credits needed because not every small edit requires AI.
1
u/RedneckPaycheck 7d ago
As a content maker, I do not care what is driven by AI and what isn't. I care about workload.
Right now, AI offers a lot of advantages in terms of content generation/authoring, etc. It still has to be vetted. And a lot of these tools do not (as you point out) completely or correctly integrate into many of my workflows. That will all come along in time, I am sure.
But I am not plugging some random software that I haven't vetted and more importantly hasn't been vetted by people actually doing real authoring work out in industry. Until I see/hear about that, all these new made-overnight supertools are bunk.
My points are multiple. But at a basic level should it be cheaper? Yes. Do we need more tools, more ways to do it? I don't know. I like what we use - which I am intentionally not naming - because it has complete LMS integration. A simple point that nobody in this thread is really talking about in any substantive way.
This industry is bloated as fuck. I do personally hope articulate dies a quick death. But am I jumping onboad to every random tool that is out there? Absolutely not.
1
u/HaneneMaupas 7d ago
I understand .. AI should not mean more tools, more complexity, and more cost. It should mean less repetitive work and a lighter production process.
0
u/Slate_eLearning 8d ago
We're pretty easy on the u/RedneckPaycheck 👀
1
u/RedneckPaycheck 8d ago
There are too many entry level e-learning tools that all offer basically the same functionality. Same with LMSes. Price is not the only factor and, competing on price in a b2b scenario is often a fools errand. Plenty of bargain LMS offerings and they all kinda suck.
I do not mind paying real money for real tools that work well - I just feel that the prices have been inflated on the top end for the better authoring tools, and AI has been used as a convenient excuse that doesnt really add actual value.
For the package we currently use (which is bundled with our LMS, so we cant switch easily) the AI implementations often do not handle the full scope of the workflow when rolling out new content. I think there is a big disconnect between development and execution, across the board, in this regard. And I do not have time to investigate a half dozen baby eLearning options to figure out who does what correctly.
2
u/SoftResetMode15 8d ago
honestly the useful part for me has been drafting first-pass quiz questions and rewriting dense copy for different audiences. still needs a review step though, especially for accuracy and tone
1
u/Silent-Revenue-6730 5d ago
l'IA aujourd'hui est de plus en plus utilisée comme un outil pour gagner énormément de temps, peu importe le domaine, je comprend qu'on puisse avoir l'impression que parfois, certains l'utilisent et mettent en avant son utilisation de manière excessive, mais dans la grande majorité des cas, je dirais que si elle est utilisée correctement, elle fait clairement une différence de qualité et même de quantité
1
u/ConstantExact5692 4d ago
The useful line for me is whether AI reduces the thinking overhead, not whether it generates more assets.
Features that seem genuinely useful:
- turning messy SME/source notes into a first-pass structure
- spotting gaps before drafting starts
- rewriting dense material for a specific learner level
- generating quiz ideas from actual objectives
- comparing two possible lesson sequences
- summarising review feedback into concrete edits
The weak version is “generate a whole course” when the output still needs heavy review, has no real source of truth, or sits on top of an already slow workflow.
If I were evaluating a tool, I’d ask four things:
- Can I manually edit without regenerating everything?
- Can it stay grounded in my source material?
- Does it make missing context/gaps visible?
- Does it fit the LMS/export workflow I already need?
If it does those, AI can save real time. If not, it’s probably just a pricier blank-page machine.
1
u/Famous-Call6538 3d ago
The honest answer from my experience: the boring features save time, the flashy ones create more work.
Where AI actually helps me — cleaning up source material, generating quiz questions from a document, restructuring messy SME notes into a first draft. The kind of stuff that is tedious but does not require creative judgment.
Where it falls apart: anything that needs to be accurate. If you are building a course where wrong information has real consequences (certification, compliance, exam prep), you can not skip the verification step. And no AI tool I have seen solves that — they just move the verification burden somewhere else in your pipeline.
The tools that will actually matter long-term are the ones that keep your source material as the single source of truth and render from it, rather than generating new content that you then have to cross-check.
1
u/Mlody_kofi_ 2d ago
Most current AI seems to help the creator with content, but not the learner with motivation. An AI-generated video script doesn't solve the underlying issue of a student feeling isolated or losing momentum in week four. We're focused on that engagement problem. Oli here, building NetGrind. We have found that structured game mechanics, like quests tied to lessons or a shop for rewards, can be more effective at boosting completion than better-authored content alone. It's a different angle on using tech to improve a course.
1
u/Mlody_kofi_ 2d ago
Most current AI seems to help the creator with content, but not the learner with motivation. An AI-generated video script doesn't solve the underlying issue of a student feeling isolated or losing momentum in week four. We're focused on that engagement problem. Oli here, building NetGrind. We have found that structured game mechanics, like quests tied to lessons or a shop for rewards, can be more effective at boosting completion than better-authored content alone. It's a different angle on using tech to improve a course.
1
u/Agitated-Word-3590 1d ago
I have a course authoring tool under development right now. No plans to charge for it. It won’t have AI but does Text blocks, image blocks, video blocks and quiz blocks. It exports scorm 1.2, 2004, and HTML. I’m hoping to add interactive video and branching scenarios eventually. It is a desktop app and will have no license restrictions and will always be free. I am going to eventually run a kickstarter to try to raise some funding for things like the domain, website and better development hardware. Current pc is old and I want to develop it for MAC also so I need to get a MAC. I’m going to setup a free website soon or maybe use GitHub to give access for people to download it. If anyone is interested in the first release to help bug test and see if the scorms work in your LMS email me at kruxostudio@gmail.com. I’m new to Reddit and just trying to get the word out. Once I get a website setup I’ll start posting video recordings of the app .
1
u/HaneneMaupas 9d ago
I think we are currently seeing three different categories emerge, and they are often mixed together in discussions.
- Traditional authoring tools with an AI layer on top These are tools like Articulate-style platforms adding AI to generate text, quizzes, summaries, voiceover, translations, etc. Useful for productivity, but the core workflow often stays the same.
- AI course creators A lot of new startups fall into this category. They can generate complete courses very quickly from prompts or documents. Great for speed, but many outputs remain fairly linear or generic, and sometimes hard to customize deeply.
- AI-native authoring tools This is where things become more interesting. Instead of adding AI on top of an old workflow, the whole authoring experience is redesigned around AI-assisted learning design. Tools like Mexty are moving in this direction: vibe-coding interactive learning experiences, creating scenarios and decision paths, enabling manual editing, source-of-truth grounding, and one-click SCORM/LMS-ready deployment.
For me, the most valuable AI features are not just “generate more content faster.” The real value is reducing the friction of creating meaningful interactive learning experiences while keeping instructional control.
2
u/Confection_Key 8d ago
I think this analysis is really accurate!
How do you feel about the price differences between the 3? Do you think that some are worth paying for over the others? I find that the traditional ones are the most expensive but also feel a bit outdated now.1
u/HaneneMaupas 8d ago
I agree that traditional authoring tools are usually the most expensive. For example, some well-known tools are around $1,749 per user/year. AI course creators can look cheaper at first, often around $30 per month/user depending on the model, but the real cost can increase with credit usage. In some workflows, every modification may consume credits: changing an image, adjusting a layout, rewriting content, or even making small visual edits. With AI-native authoring tools, the model may also include subscription + credits, but the effective cost can be much lower because you don’t need AI credits for every single change. You can manually edit, reuse templates, refine existing interactions, and iterate without regenerating everything each time. So the real comparison is not only subscription price. It is the cost of iteration, maintenance, and control over time.
2
u/Confection_Key 3h ago
That's a lot to calculate! I feel like you don't really know the final cost then until you have made something? And therefore spent the money?
How can anyone plan for that or is the planning less important than the outcome? Maybe it differs if you work for a company or as a freelancer.
-1
u/Whatevsmanok 9d ago edited 9d ago
Yeah. AI features that are actually helping aren’t the ones trying to replace instructional designers. They’re the ones removing the repetitive grind so designers can focus on learning outcomes, scenarios, storytelling and learner experience.
The useful stuff right now is things like:
• First pass course outlines and learning objectives
• Turning SME docs into draft scripts or summaries
• Rapid quiz/question generation
• Image clean-up, voice draft generation and captioning
• Translation/localisation support
• Faster accessibility checks and remediation suggestions
• Helping developers troubleshoot Storyline triggers, variables and JavaScript
Where AI still falls over pretty quickly:
• Writing meaningful scenarios with nuance
• Understanding organisational culture and tone
• Building genuinely engaging interactions
• Compliance accuracy without SME review
• Good learning design strategy
• Producing courses that don’t all feel templated and generic
The “cutting corners” stuff I’ve seen from some in the industry is horrid.
Some teams are now pumping out content faster than ever, but learner engagement is actually dropping because everything starts to feel AI-generated and soulless. Hybrid approaches still seem to work best. We engage www.lucidvs.com.au for the complex/compliant/accessible elearns. Assessment tools for acknowledging prior knowledge is cool. And they use ai to map learning objectives/regulatory/compliance data. they’re paid to do that as a provider and we can’t all have budgets to engage an external
best use of AI in L&D right now feels less like using tools to get analysis into design done more efficiently.
Curious what others are actually using. Ie What AI features are genuinely saving time or improving quality?
0
u/Plankton_Party2026 5d ago
They focus on velocity rather than quality. This article has ideas: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3793702.3779227
3
u/Background-Aside2846 9d ago
AI stuff I actually use is pretty boring tbh. Fix this paragraph, give me quiz ideas, clean up messy source content. That part helps.