Academic writing and AI: Day-2 experiment with Bayesian Mindsponge Framework

Nguyen, Minh‐Hoang

doi:10.31219/osf.io/kr29c

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although ChatGPT can create designs and texts suitable for an academic article, it has many shortcomings when looking at the article examples it has written. At this point, there is also a concern that it may lead to a lack of critical thinking, originality and analysis and provide biased information (Bishop, 2023;Dutton, 2023;İskender, 2023;Nguyen, 2023). In addition, there are concerns that ChatGPT may not represent the moral, social and cultural ideals that academics value (OpenAI, 2022).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward non-human-centered design: designing an academic article with ChatGPT

Livberber

2023

EPI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Non-human-centered design tools, such as ChatGPT, have shown potential as effective aids in academic article design. This study conducts a comparative evaluation of ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4, examining their capabilities and limitations in supporting the academic article design process. The study aims to demonstrate the utility of ChatGPT as a writing tool and investigate its applicability and efficacy in the context of academic paper design. The author interacted with both versions of ChatGPT, providing prompts and analyzing the generated responses. In addition, a different expert academic was consulted to assess the appropriateness of the ChatGPT responses. The findings suggest that ChatGPT, despite its limitations, could serve as a useful tool for academic writing, particularly in the design of academic articles. Despite the limitations of both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, GPT-3.5 offers a broader perspective, whereas GPT-4 provides a more in-depth and detailed approach to the design of articles. ChatGPT exhibits capabilities in aiding the design process, generating ideas aligned with the overall purpose and focus of the paper, producing consistent and contextually relevant responses to various natural language inputs, partially assisting in literature reviews, supporting paper design in terms of both content and format, and providing reasonable editing and proofreading for articles. However, limitations were identified, including reduced critical thinking, potential for plagiarism, risk of misinformation, lack of originality and innovation, and limited access to literature.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward non-human-centered design: designing an academic article with ChatGPT

Livberber

2023

EPI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

ChatGPT-3.5 as writing assistance in students’ essays

Bašić,

Banovac,

Kružić

et al. 2023

Humanit Soc Sci Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ChatGPT-3.5, an AI language model capable of text generation, translation, summarization, and question-answering, has recently been released for public use. Studies have shown it can generate abstracts, research papers, and dissertations, and create quality essays on different topics. This led to ethical issues in using ChatGPT in academic writing, AI authorship, and evaluating students’ essays. However, it is still unknown how ChatGPT performs in students’ environments as a writing assistant tool and if it enhances students’ essay-writing performance. In the present study, we examined students’ essay-writing performances with or without ChatGPT as an essay-writing assistance tool. The average essay grade was C for both control (traditional essay-writing, n = 9) and experimental (ChatGPT-assisted essay-writing, n = 9) groups. None of the predictors affected essay scores: group, writing duration, study module, and GPA. The text unauthenticity was slightly higher in the experimental group, but the similarity among essays was generally low in the overall sample. In the experimental group, the AI classifier recognized more potential AI-generated texts. Our results demonstrate that the ChatGPT group did not perform better in either of the indicators; the students did not deliver higher quality content, did not write faster, nor had a higher degree of authentic text. We anticipate that these results can relieve some concerns about this tool’s usage in academic writing. ChatGPT-assisted writing could depend on the previous knowledge and skills of the user, which might, in certain instances, lead to confusion in inexperienced users and result in poorer essay writing performance.

show abstract

Artificial Intelligence in Terminology Processing: Testing the Robustness of a Custom GPT

Nahod,

Nahod

2024

11th SWS International Scientific Conferences on ART and HUMANITIES - ISCAH Proceedings 2024, Volume 11

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Following the discontinuance of funding of the Croatian national term base � Struna (http://struna.ihjj.hr/) in 2019. we initiated the development of a new methodology for creating terminological collections independent of field experts' input for the initial terminological data. A possible solution to our problem of finding a compact and robust source for generating information in the early stages of processing terminology (the �raw definitions�) in various domains could be found in the publicly available AI language model created by OpenAI called ChatGPT-4. ChatGPT is a large language model whose functions include answering questions, text generation, and completing tasks such as translation and summarisation. A custom GPT is currently being developed that will be used as an assistance module, providing raw information for terminological units to be processed in Struna. Following the initial intensive testing of ChatGPT-4, we have started to develop and train a custom GPT bot (working name: TermAI). The first stage of training consisted of manually providing rules of good practices for terminology management, adapted from the original training of field experts. The second stage consists of feeding the TermAI with modified data exported from Struna. In this paper, we will present the results of the analysis of generated information from the new domain in comparison to the quality of information that was attained in the domain that TermAI was trained on, as well as information obtained from the actual field experts in the novelty domain.

show abstract

Academic writing and AI: Day-2 experiment with Bayesian Mindsponge Framework

Abstract: To check the ability of AI to identify precise and detailed scientific information, I experiment with how accurate AI recognizes scientific terms, their origins, meanings, and usages, and whether the accuracy increases over time.

Cited by 3 publications

References 13 publications

Toward non-human-centered design: designing an academic article with ChatGPT

Toward non-human-centered design: designing an academic article with ChatGPT

ChatGPT-3.5 as writing assistance in students’ essays

Artificial Intelligence in Terminology Processing: Testing the Robustness of a Custom GPT

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About