Launch HN: Miyagi (YC W25) turns YouTube videos into online, interactive courses
We use LLMs to automatically generate quizzes, practice questions, and real-time feedback from any educational video or resource—turning passive watching into active learning. Here’s a short demo: https://youtu.be/alO7FaorHOY.
Improving education has always been tricky. Bloom’s 2-sigma problem (showing that a high-quality personal tutor is far more effective than conventional methods) has persisted, even as technology has advanced.
We met at MIT as CS majors and have always been passionate about education. Over the years, we’ve become teachers and experts in subjects like chess, algorithms, math, languages, and ninja warrior. A common theme was that we both heavily relied on YouTube to learn.
YouTube has incredible content for learning pretty much anything, but it’s buried in a lot of distractions. Also, passively watching videos is far less effective than taking notes, asking questions, and doing practice problems, which is what we aim to do with Miyagi Labs.
Our solution is essentially a multi-step function that takes in a YouTube playlist (or list of any resources) and outputs an entire course with summaries, questions, answers, and more. The pipeline is roughly: video/resource —> transcript/text —> chunks —> summary and question —> answers to questions, with some other features along the way.
We mostly use prompting and different models at each step to make the course as useful as possible. Certain topics require more practice problems vs. comprehension, and we’d use reasoning models for highly technical subjects.
We launched about three months ago and currently have 400+ courses and partnerships with some businesses and awesome creators. Some of our popular courses include 3Blue1Brown’s linear algebra course, a botany course on plants and ecology, and YC’s How to Start a Startup series.
Our product resembles classical MOOC-style course platforms in terms of UI, but is more interactive. It’s really easy to ask a question or receive custom feedback compared to a static course on Coursera. It’s also comparable to AI tutor sites, but we try to build more of a community and require less activation energy as a learner. We’re basically betting that AI can hugely improve education, but that students still want to learn from their favorite creators and want baseline shared resources for standard topics that are then augmented with personalized features.
You can try it here: https://miyagilabs.ai (no login required for most courses—but if you sign up you can also create your own course).
We’d love your feedback on what kinds of videos/resources you’d like to learn from, what’s missing from current learning tools, and if you know any creators or educators who would like to collaborate. Happy to hear any feedback and answer any questions!
This concept is really cool and solves big challenges around content creation. Obviously, it adds new challenges around pedagogy, licensing, and ads. The last part is a big no no for blue chip edtech platforms.
1) Section Lectures on the left side need to be cleaned up, instead of just a numbered list. Seeing 30+ lectures off rip is a bit daunting, especially with no labeling, sectioning, etc. I'd imagine feeding a model a list of all the lecture titles, then having it structured should work?
2) You're doing too much on the bottom section.
You need to incorporate all those tabs into the single Ai tutor, which can run whatever tools required (maybe notes/discussion can be a small additional indication). No one's going to be using the Flashcards section, and it's calling probably the same LLM as the AI tutor, so might as well combine them.
For the quiz, maybe when the video ends or the user wants to continue, the Ai Tutor goes into "quiz mode" forcing the user to attempt or pass the quiz (depending on the settings?).
Think of this like Cursor but for Education. Cursors powerful agent can handle/do so much, you're not using 3-4 different fields.
Oh and have it on the right side instead of transcript, so it's right there in users faces instead of having to scroll down.
For example, taking a video about building garden retaining walls and generating detailed system prompts for Q&A with the expert in the video.
I reference ~home improvement or tool videos and often comments contain points of wisdom or even corrections of mistakes (errata) on videos that are otherwise good. For example, setting up a hand plane and ways to mark a board you're working on.
Do you use video comments in your context? I've (manually) scraped content on educational videos and built prompting to assess signal and incorporate what are likely important errata in LLM context.
> video/resource —> transcript/text —>
For this step in your pipeline, are you multi-modal? I mean, are you using the LLM to interpret what is shown in the video itself? How is that content used?
Do you have any sense for allowing people to generate educational content off arbitrary videos?
We may make that an option though, since we also offer other resource types (pdf, slides, docs) -> course.
Prof. Steve Brunton's YT channel is a treasure trove of material for you folks, with course-like playlists for controls, data-driven engineering, and dynamical systems: https://www.youtube.com/@Eigensteve/playlists
He should be a featured creator, much like 3b1b is for math!
I’m curious why you didn’t use multiple choice for the exercises? I feel like those would be easier than typing out full answers and be closer to MOOC style homework. Maybe have a longer written question at the end of a section.
The exercises work pretty well, I like the highlighting red wrong vs. green right. It does feel a bit like the MOOC-style discussions. The tutor doesn’t just tell you the answers which is cool, but something about talking with the tutor feels a bit flat. And the flashcards weren’t very helpful for the course I picked.
I could see myself doing some courses like this with some more gamification. Being able to filter by course provider (Ycombinator, or MIT) would be cool too.
Anything specific we could improve about talking to the tutor? Definitely will add some of those features and gamify better.
Again, very cool idea. I'm going to try some of the nuclear courses later this week.
Best of luck!
Blows my mind that 1:1 tutoring dwarfs the impact of other factors such as socioeconomic status, reinforcement, assigned homework, classroom morale, etc (at least according to the researchers).
Does anyone know if this thesis has been replicated? Or if these results hold in modern times (original study was 40 years ago)?
[1] https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/scirobotics.aat5954 [2] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00461520.2011.61... [3] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0013189X2091279...
Something I’ve been doing more and more lately is asking chatgpt to create a detailed description of a topic which can be read aloud for whatever duration I plan on driving. This works exceptionally well - even for short 5 minute drives.
I wonder if the same can be done for video-based content. Sometimes I’m short on time but still want to learn something.
Here are some of the very best in the category, it would be really cool if you partnered with any of these.
https://www.youtube.com/@hungryhorsepoker
https://www.youtube.com/@CarrotCornerPoker
https://www.youtube.com/@PokerCoaching
UPDATE: " This course failed to generate. Please try again or contact us."
I really like a lot of the components of your idea, but the execution is underwhelming. Right now it feels like you're providing middling tools for too many components without nailing any of them. Alternatively I could watch the YT video at all ready has a transcript, take notes in any tool, and ask questions to any LLM; the piece missing is context, so that's where it feels like you should focus.
Re: assessments; it feels like you're being distracted here; I'm not convinced that's how your natural target market learns in this modality. We generate quizes in our product, but it's typically used in the "internal compliance" segment - think mandatory training like food safety for food preparers - not the external (typically adult) self-improvement market (which is huge!). If you're going to do asessments you need a lot of non-AI boilerplate around tracking, validation and certification/credentials. My two cents: quizes in your app are a cool demo feature with little real value.
Congrats on the launch!
For instance we worked directly with Crime Pays but Botany Doesn't & Faculty of Khan etc. to get official courses that they also had input in, and 3Blue1Brown is on board with us having his content on our site.
I’m still coming up to speed on the full scope of what your product does, but I’m curious what you’d say to someone like pal2tec, who has some fairly strong and what I feel to be reasonable views about the impact of content summarization [0].
Getting direct buy-in and sharing revenue is great. But it’s not clear to me that this is the only thing that creators care about, i.e. are you still summarizing content you’re not monetizing without creator buy-in?
- [0] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ULUSS1-G3do
Just watched the video, I don't initially agree with his take completely but do totally respect the viewpoint and think a payment split to the creator whenever someone summarizes the video makes sense.
Yes we do offer the option to summarize content without creator buy-in, although it seems a bit different since we're also augmenting the content with questions etc. which should drive users to watch the video even more as opposed to skip it and just read the summary.
But you're right it's not perfect. If we ever have creators who don't want their stuff on our site we'd totally respect their wishes, but that hasn't been the case right now so this seems like the best thing to do.
From a creator’s point of view, I think the concern would be about how true this remains as the product grows/evolves.
But as long as there’s an opt-out, that seems like a reasonable approach.
Also to be clear we have partnerships for all the featured courses. This refers to if a user creates a course based on some videos.
Are you not still making derivative content of the work without the copyright holder's permission? A judge might not care that much whether the video is embedded or not.
Do note that this behavior of "opting creators into a program without their consent, justifying it via revenue share, and CYA with a 'they can opt out if they want to!' shield" is still... awful optics.
The whole Brave scandal (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18736888) is a good case study on how laypeople will perceive this. It's not popular at all.
But in summary, YouTube is rolling out AI summarization features on some content without giving creators any say in the matter.
Concerns include:
- Low quality summarization of high quality content will devalue the content, and in many cases is just a worse version of the content
- Impact to watch time on the channel can impact channel success over time
- YouTube is not doing anything to compensate creators for reducing watch time such as sharing revenue from viewers who primarily interact with the AI summary
But I think he articulates this much better than I did. Much better to watch the video.
FWIW, unfortunately, I think the problem is a two-headed one, and maybe reversed for viewers vs creators. Creators want as many people to see their work as possible. But viewers have to sift through a graveyard of 95%+ junk videos to find the 5% worth watching. AI (or Google/TikTok/etc. in general) acting as gatekeeper in between isn't great, but not having any metrics/summaries/descriptions for videos would be even worse.
In this particular case, I get that this particular creator might've had a point to make, but the description and summary were so cheekily written (to make a point, I guess) that I had no idea what it was about.
The creators who I do follow typically make long-form educational videos with a lot of nuance; I wouldn't want to rely on even the best-written human summary for those. But there are many, many videos for which I'd prefer a 1-sentence summary over 3 minutes of intros and jokes, a 45-second sponsorship, and a gradual dramatic buildup before getting to the point.
Not sure what the long-term solution is.
Association with that brand would be very valuable.
The referenced video is from a photographer who has some pretty strong and reasonable thoughts on this - specifically the features YouTube itself is experimenting with.
Depending on the nature of the AI product, it has the potential to completely sideline creators.
Not saying that’s what Miyagi is doing and it sounds like they’re actually working with creators on this which is good. But the broader point is that such tools need to be thoughtfully implemented.
- [0] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ULUSS1-G3do
If Cliff’s notes were actually just AI summaries of specific books generated by an unrelated entity and presented in a way that allowed the reader to avoid purchasing the underlying content, that’d be a very different scenario.
In the linked example, YouTube is essentially doing the latter. The product launched in this thread sits in a greyer area I think, but still raises some questions about content ownership and how creators will react to these new kinds of tools and modes of consumption.
Whether or not it’s strictly legal is a different conversation than whether or not creators feel comfortable with these emerging options.
> Once its out there, they lose control of how people interact with it.
Sure. But they also have every right to choose to put it behind a paywall if new tools change the calculus that originally made publishing it publicly make sense.
Learning languages seems a bit different in that there's more focus on repetition compared to comprehension questions, but there are certain topics (like grammar concepts) that could work well in our current structure. Also there are some really popular YouTube channels for learning any language, so we definitely see a potential to augment those videos to more accurately & effectively learn.
For self-created courses, it's generally been quite accurate and we're playing around with some eval metrics to make it as good as possible, but it's definitely a concern.
I am curious if you are using any methodologies from the digital learning space like knowledge tracing to help ensure that learners are actually retaining knowledge and improving over time or knowledge mapping to understand the gaps that might exist in your content?
Do you maintain your own skills taxonomy? Are you tagging your questions or assessment events with knowledge components or skills of any kind to understand what you are testing your students for?
All of this is really cool, I’m just curious at what level you’ve gotten to on some of this because there is a very fine line in online educational content between making the students life more difficult and actually helping them learn, especially when you get into auto-generating content, and especially if you aren’t following solid principles to verify your content. (I work for an online education company and particularly in the space of training LLMs and verifying their outputs for use in educational contexts)
Yep—also in the process of adding learning paths for certain subjects, so you can go from an introductory course to more advanced topics and fill in gaps in understanding. Agreed: our mission is to help students actually learn in the best way possible, we have individual courses now to start out but the goal is to integrate the learning experience.
Very curious to chat about what you guys do, and if you have recs for any literature in the space that we should look at.
- For official courses the creators are doing some quality control and do necessary fixes. - For self-created courses there is zero human supervision or quality control.
Is that correct?
Streaming platforms can vary quite a lot in how they choose to distribute subtitles. I've worked with scraping subtitles from both Youtube and Netflix and I will say that these platforms distribute subtitles very differently!
But it does seem that your platform ingests video content without the permission of the person who creates these videos? The value of your platform is driven by the people creating the videos. You say that you do revenue sharing, and that you have done 5 partnerships. But you have 400 courses, so what about the other 395?
Putting it as kindly as I can: this is ethically fraught. Really, did nobody in the room point this out? You do not come off looking like a partner here.
You need to make this opt-in, not opt-out, and specify revenue sharing terms up front. Those terms need to be generous. The people who produce video content are producing the majority of your product's value. Opt-out, of an ambiguous revenue sharing agreement, is not enough.