For the past 10 months, we’ve been working on a project that adds nearly 700 interactive learning activities to the OpenStax Anatomy & Physiology textbook — and it’s finally ready.

As many of you know, OpenStax textbooks are well written, comprehensive, and free to use. Our goal was to build on that foundation and make the learning experience much more interactive.

Instead of simply reading a figure or diagram, you can interact with it. We’ve replaced or enhanced nearly all of the figures throughout the book with activities designed to explain concepts visually and step by step. You can explore structures, identify anatomical features, work through physiological processes, and actively engage with the material rather than just reading about it.

Since learning anatomy requires knowing a lot of terminology, we paid special attention to helping students actually learn and remember anatomical terms. We added flashcards for key terms throughout the book, as well as a large number of labeling activities for bones, muscles, organs, and other anatomical structures.

The labeling activities are designed for repeated practice, and include audio pronunciation, so you can learn not only how to recognize a structure and spell its name, but also how to pronounce it correctly.

There is also a built-in AI study assistant.

Besides the general things you would expect from an AI assistant, it is aware of the textbook itself and knows where you are in the book. That means you can ask questions about what you’re currently studying, get explanations in context, or have it create study materials for you.

For example, you can ask it to:

• Create flashcards from the current section
• Generate a 10 question quiz
• Explain a "difficult concept" in a different way
• Find related sections elsewhere in the textbook

The idea is to turn the OpenStax textbook from something you mostly read into something you can read, explore, practice, listen to, and test yourself with.

If you use OpenStax Anatomy & Physiology for a class, teach from it, or are studying A&P on your own, I’d love for you to try it and tell us what you think.

You can start a free trial here: Anatomy & Physiology Textbook

As a small Reddit launch offer, I’ll also give 6 months of free access to the first 5 people who start a free trial and send me a DM. I’ll reply with the details on how to activate the 6-month access.

I’d also genuinely appreciate feedback from students and instructors — especially which activities you find most useful and what you think we should improve next.

It’s always easier to learn a concept when you can visualize it — and even easier when you can walk through the process step by step.

I’ve been working on this stepped animation of the sodium-potassium pump, that I would like to share. I hope you find animations like this useful while studying anatomy.

https://i.redd.it/m4dkgxlq78jh1.gif

Over the past many months, we’ve been working on making OpenStax Anatomy & Physiology online book more interactive and engaging. So far, we’ve added nearly 700 learning activities, including stepped animations like this one, labeling exercises, diagrams, flashcards, quizzes, and more.

Do you think a stepped animation better than a video?

I am curious, how many college professors currently use the OpenStax Anatomy and Physiology 2e textbook in their courses.

Is the book used more at community colleges, or is it also commonly adopted by four-year colleges and universities? I would especially appreciate hearing from instructors who use it as their main textbook, a supplemental resource, or part of an open educational resources program.

If you teach Anatomy and Physiology, I would be grateful to know:

• Do you use OpenStax Anatomy and Physiology 2e as your primary textbook?
• Which chapters or topics do students find most difficult?
• Would interactive activities and additional practice exercises be useful in your course?

Thank you for sharing your experience.

I’m currently working on a study guide for human anatomy, and I would really appreciate your honest feedback.

Everyone studies differently. I’d love to know which tools and methods actually help you understand and remember the material.

Which of these work best for you?

• Flashcards—digital or paper
• Practice quizzes
• Interactive labeling tools
• Videos and animations
• Mind maps
• Mnemonics
• Drawing and diagramming with pencil and paper
• Audio-based learning
• Apps, websites, and other online platforms

Do you prefer digital tools such as apps, online platforms, and electronic flashcards, or traditional methods such as handwritten notes and drawing diagrams?

I’d especially like to know:

• What actually helps you remember anatomy?
• What methods did not work well for you?
• Do you prefer digital tools or traditional study methods?
• Are there any features you wish anatomy study guides included?

Links to other useful tools, websites, apps or other resources would also be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for sharing your experience. Your feedback will help me create a more useful and effective anatomy study guide.

Learning human anatomy can be challenging—everyone studies differently. What tools work best for you?

• Flashcards (digital or paper?)
• Practice quizzes
• Interactive labeling tools
• Videos & animations
• Mindmaps
• Mnemonics
• Drawing / diagramming (pencil and paper)
• Audio learning

Digital vs. Traditional Tools

Do you prefer electronic tools like apps, online platforms, and digital flashcards, or do you learn better with pencil and paper methods like drawing diagrams and handwritten notes?

If you have links to share, it would be great

• What tools do you use the most?
• What actually helps you remember anatomy?
• What didn’t work for you?
• Do you prefer digital tools or traditional methods?
• Can you share links to tools or resources you find especially useful?

I’m working on two animated 3D demos:

Water molecules. This shows water molecules and the forces between them. Does anything look scientifically incorrect or misleading? Change temperature, see what happens.

Salt dissolved in water. This shows table salt separating into Na⁺ and Cl⁻ ions in water. Are the water molecules and forces around the ions shown correctly?

A few days ago, I posted another molecular presentation, and the community quickly spotted an issue. I’d appreciate another accuracy check.

These two demos are part of Human Anatomy & Physiology Guide, chapter about Chemical level of organization.

I’ve always wanted to know the position of atoms relative to one another within a molecule — and how their sizes compare.

While exploring this question, I found a database containing real 3D molecular structures and the coordinates of their atoms. Using that data, I built an interactive 3D visualization of the amino acids found in the human body. You can select each amino acid from the drop-down menu and explore its molecular structure from different angles.

This activity was created as part for a book of Human Anatomy. It accompanies the chapter on the chemical level of organization.

Do you think is it a good visual tool? Can you identify side-chain on each molecule?

I'd like to share something I have recently create. It is stepped animation that explains how sodium-potassium pump works. Here is the link to the interactive version. It is part of anatomy and physiology study guide.

Would love you feedback or comments.

https://i.redd.it/d4zdi3w13leh1.gif

I have been working on an interactive study aid designed to make learning Anatomy & Physiology more effective.

https://preview.redd.it/kp46zf81neeh1.png?width=802&format=png&auto=webp&s=15fab4a5c2e53e1f9498c5a351789f9ce9b30da5

Each activity has three sections:

Explore — encounter the terms for the first time and move through them one by one. Be sure to try the audio button—it pronounces each anatomical term and is especially helpful with unfamiliar terminology.

Review — go through all the terms again and reinforce what you just learned.

Practice — test yourself by identifying the structures. The goal is to help you memorize the terms faster through active recall.

To play with this activity click Axial & Appendicular Skeleton and free study guide can be found here Study Guide.

I would really appreciate honest feedback. Is the Explore–Review–Practice workflow clear? What am I missing?

A friend of mine is an HR manager, and she recently told me she is building AI agents.

She also said that when looking for HR jobs, employers increasingly ask for agentic AI skills, not just experience with HR automation.

I see so many people boasting... "I built 80 agents in 2 weeks..." and the like.

I am building AI agents too—but it sounds like we are building very different kinds of systems.

For me, it means calling an LLM API, assembling prompts from skill files, exposing tools, interpreting model responses, executing actions, and showing users only what they are supposed to see.

But what do other people mean when they say they are “building agents”?

A custom GPT? A Claude Project? A prompt connected to a spreadsheet? An n8n, Zapier, or Make workflow? A LangChain or CrewAI setup? An AI feature inside an existing SaaS product? Or a full custom system with tools, memory, state, retries, permissions, and its own orchestration layer?

We all use the same phrase and nod as if we are talking about the same thing.

I am increasingly convinced we are not.

Should we use more specific language, such as:

• low-code agent
• workflow agent
• API-based agent
• tool-using agent
• agentic application

I wish we could have more precise language....

I am working on an agent that creates documents and I tried to use LLM to update my skill files. But my experience has not been great so far.

When a test prompt fails and I ask the model to “fix the skill,” it usually adds more instructions instead of improving the underlying structure. After a few iterations, the skill becomes bloated, repetitive, and harder for the model to follow.

Duplication is another problem. The same rules, schemas, examples, and product knowledge often get copied across multiple skill files. Then every change has to be synchronized manually, and over time the files start to contradict one another.

I wish skill systems could be represented as a knowledge graph or structured tree, so that when a prompt fails, you could trace the issue to the exact rule, dependency, or knowledge node that needs to change.

I cam across SkillOpt library from MS, which is actually doing this thing. Has anyone used SkillOpt successfully in a real project? Did it actually reduce skill bloat and duplicated knowledge, or did it create the same problems in a more automated way?

I know someone with two setups: one for Company A and another for Company B. He gives AI a prompt on one, turns to the other and works there, then switches back to review the generated code, while the other one is running his prompts. He genuinely was able to work 2 full time jobs at the same time and collects two full-time salaries.

Is this simply smart use of AI, as long as he delivers good work to both companies? Or is it cheating because each employer assumes it is getting his full attention during working hours?

Where should the line be drawn?

I know another person who runs a consulting firm. One of his engineers submitted twice the usual number of hours for the month. When questioned, the engineer said he had used AI to do twice as much work—and had also paid for the tokens.

To me, that does not feel very honest. AI can increase productivity, but billing hours that were not actually worked is different from charging for the value delivered.