AIfred: Augmented Learning through Functional Robotic Embodiment at the Desk

Chatbots have long been explored as tools to support learning, and recent advances in large language models have significantly expanded the availability of platforms for educators to author AI tutoring chatbots. Yet effective authorship demands more than writing a system prompt; it requires educators to act as learning designers, AI interaction designers, and QA engineers. In practice, however, teachers rarely fulfill these roles. Our formative study found that virtually none systematically tested their bots before deploying them to students. To address this gap, we present PromptDecipher, a system that restructures the authoring workflow around a direct correction-based interaction rather than writing abstract system prompts, teachers interact with a live chat preview and edit undesirable bot responses. An automated pipeline then analyzes the correction, proposes a targeted system prompt rewrite, and validates the change across pre-defined test scenarios. This enforces QA as a first-class activity and scaffolds teachers in roles they would otherwise skip. PromptDecipher will be deployed in an AI for Educators course enrolling hundreds of higher-education instructors. A live prototype (https://teacher-prompting.vercel.app/), an anonymized codebase (https://anonymous.4open.science/r/teacher-prompting-2EDF/), and anonymized demo (https://tinyurl.com/las-prompt-decipher-demo) are available via links in the footnote.

The key bottleneck in embodied AI is not model architecture but data. Although billions of human manipulation videos exist online, robots cannot directly learn from them due to the embodiment gap between human morphology and robot hardware. We introduce Pegasus, a low-resource framework that bridges this gap by translating human demonstrations into robot-learnable data through structured knowledge transfer. Instead of relying on raw video prompts, Pegasus constructs a graph-based intermediate representation: a Task Graph extracted from human videos is transformed through Affordance and Constraint Graphs into a Robot Planning Graph for robot-conditioned video generation. A hierarchical affordance latent space models the relationship between object states, affordances, and tasks, enabling generalization beyond object identities. A closed-loop physics verifier further filters invalid generations using kinematic feasibility, collision constraints, and joint limits. We evaluate Pegasus across a range of egocentric manipulation benchmarks, including GTEA Gaze+ and EPIC-KITCHENS-100, and diverse robot embodiments, assessing Task Correctness, Executability, State Consistency, and Learnability. Results demonstrate reliable cross-embodiment translation and show that robot data generation can be reframed from a hardware collection problem into a scalable, low-resource knowledge transfer problem.

The rapid adoption of generative AI has made final artifacts unreliable evidence of student learning, and AI detectors that examine only the finished product are inaccurate and ethically contentious. Process data offers an alternative, but prior work covers only English essay writing. We ask whether AI assistance carries a temporal signature, whether it generalizes from writing to programming, and whether it distinguishes ordinary collaboration from wholesale delegation. We analyze three public corpora: CoAuthor (1,447 keystroke-level co-writing sessions), RealHumanEval (editor telemetry from 243 programmer records), and a pre-LLM CS1 corpus (5.1 million keystrokes) as a human-only baseline, comparing minimal-AI work, collaborative AI use, and simulated wholesale delegation. Three findings emerge. First, the signature generalizes: AI contributions arrive in bursts far outside the author's own baseline in both mediums (paired d_z = 1.13 and 3.54). Second, engagement diverges by medium: 93% of AI-inserted characters survived to writers' final documents, while only 14% of accepted code suggestions survived intact. Third, classifiers using only observable temporal features separate simulated delegation from authentic work nearly perfectly (F1 $\geq$ 0.997; at most 0.5% of real work misclassified), while ordinary collaboration remains hard to distinguish from unassisted work. Temporal evidence flags wholesale delegation rather than assistance, positioning process visibility as a candidate evidentiary basis for academic integrity, pending validation in authentic coursework.