good

good

A lot of good material, however... * Contrary to the course information, Python coding knowledge is pretty much required in order to understand things and complete the course activities. * Students should not be required to get paid subscriptions to OpenAI services without warning. * The labs had insufficient explanation. Questions were asked in the Course Discussion area, but it appears that nobody pays attention as there were no answers. * The code environment videos in Module 4 had poor contrast and were often too small to read, even in full-screen mode. * Quite a few of the links in the reading tasks were broken.

Modules 1-3 of this course are good. The instructor is clear and explain things well. However, some of the labs require you to investigate a lot because it is not completely taught in the course. I did not like Module 4. The instructor spoke too fast, as if in a rush and it was mainly waching the instructor code, without any background information. That module was not well structured at all. This is the reason I am giving 3 stars. If it was only on Module 1-3 I would have given it 4 stars.

"I completed this course with a top grade. While the technical insights and depth were truly excellent, the visual production felt very outdated. Using just a pen and a simple screen made the delivery less engaging. Such high-quality content deserves a much more modern and professional visual presentation. Thank you for the knowledge!"

Good general information about Gen AI. However, many lectures are outdated.

OK

OK

The first two modules are interesting. The third module is lacking with respect to the information that is needed to do the programming work that (optionally) can be done. The programming work for fourth module is impossible to do. The messages in the forum for module 4 suggest that the course has been abandoned by its makers. the course can be completed without doing programming work, but I was really looking forward to that. My review in one word: avoid.

The course provides only a surface-level overview of the topic, lacking depth and critical engagement.

Outdated and not very informative