Primera práctica: ChatGPT, Gemini

Primera práctica: ChatGPT, Gemini

by Habilidades de Inteligencia Artificial Aplicada Uk

Humanities, Social Sciences & Thought AI — Models & Research UYQArtificial intelligence (AI)UYQFGenerative artificial intelligence
🎙 Habilidades de Inteligencia Artificial Aplicada Uk 👥 3K 📅 March 14, 2026 ⏱ 119 min 👁 133 📄 tutorial 🧭 2026-08-16
Available in: English (current) Français

Keywords

ChatGPTGeminipromptIApráctica

Summary

This video is a recorded class session on the practical use of ChatGPT and Gemini. The professor, Héctor Lozano, introduces the topic and shows a pre-recorded presentation by an AI assistant named Ian, which explains the basics of language models, their capabilities, and limitations. Then, a third-party video by Eduardo Vázquez compares ChatGPT and Gemini in terms of features, pricing, and performance. After that, the professor divides the students into groups for an activity where they analyze poorly formulated prompts and rewrite them using a structured framework. Several groups present their improved prompts, and the professor provides feedback. The session emphasizes the importance of clear context, role, task, format, and quality criteria in prompt engineering.

115 words

Critical Evaluation

Value of the Information & Strength of the Argument

The video provides a practical introduction to using ChatGPT and Gemini, with a focus on prompt engineering. The value lies in the concrete examples and the interactive activity, which encourages critical thinking about how to formulate effective prompts. The argumentation is sound but not deeply technical; it relies on general principles rather than detailed analysis. The comparison video by Eduardo Vázquez offers a balanced view, highlighting strengths and weaknesses of each tool. However, the discussion is mostly at a beginner level and does not delve into advanced features or potential biases.

Scientific Rigor, Source Quality, Title Accuracy

The video does not cite specific sources, but it references the capabilities of ChatGPT and Gemini based on general knowledge. The title accurately reflects the content. The pedagogical approach is structured, but the scientific rigor is limited by the lack of citations and the reliance on anecdotal examples. The activity is well-designed to reinforce learning, but the feedback is not always detailed. Overall, the video is useful for beginners but not for advanced users.

180 words

Title / Content Match

The title accurately reflects the content: a practical session on ChatGPT and Gemini.

Quality & Reliability

6/10

The video is a practical class on using ChatGPT and Gemini, with a clear pedagogical structure. It includes a comparison video by a third party and a group activity. The information is generally accurate but lacks depth and critical analysis. The sources are not explicitly cited, and the content is mostly introductory.

Key Moments

Markers derived by PSI from the transcript: the creator did not define chapters.

Cited Sources

Concurring Sources

  • OpenAI ChatGPT — Official page for ChatGPT, confirming its capabilities and features.
  • Google Gemini — Official page for Gemini, confirming its features and availability.

Contribution & Novelties

The video offers a practical, classroom-based approach to learning prompt engineering, which is valuable for beginners. It emphasizes the importance of structured prompts and provides a framework for improvement. The interactive activity allows students to apply concepts in real-time.

Pour aller plus loin :

  • Prompt engineering guide — Comprehensive resource on prompt engineering techniques.
  • OpenAI documentation — Official guide on prompt engineering for ChatGPT.
  • Google Gemini documentation — Official documentation for Gemini API and best practices.

76 words

Radar Profile

The radar profile shows moderate scores across all dimensions, with a slightly higher score in information quantity and quality, but lower in technical level. This indicates a balanced but introductory content, suitable for beginners.

Reliability 6/10

💬 No comments were provided for analysis.