Scientific Writing – ChatGPT Versus Real-time Output: Addressing Academician’s Concern

F. Anwar, Salman Bakr I. Hosawi, Fahad A. Al-Abbasi, T. Asar
{"title":"Scientific Writing – ChatGPT Versus Real-time Output: Addressing Academician’s Concern","authors":"F. Anwar, Salman Bakr I. Hosawi, Fahad A. Al-Abbasi, T. Asar","doi":"10.2174/0129503752269069231213045450","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n\nThe advent of ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence (AI) model, has introduced\nnew challenges in educational practices, particularly in the realm of scientific writing at higher\neducational institutions. The AI is trained on extensive datasets to generate scientific texts. Many\nprofessors and academicians express concerns about the inclusion of AI chatbots in project execution,\ninterpretation, and writing within specialized subject curricula at the undergraduate and master’s\nlevels.\n\n\n\nTo address these concerns, we employed the ChatGPT tool by posing a specific query\n“Gynecomastia and the risk of non-specific lung disease, along with associated risk factors for workers\nin the petrochemical industry”. We conducted a comparison between responses generated by\nChatGPT and real-time output from master’s students, examining document-to-document variation\non different dates.\n\n\n\nThe AI chatbot failed to identify potential risk factors, in contrast to the\nstudent response, which highlighted alteration in neutrophil levels, lung architecture, high IgE, elevated\nCO2 levels, etc. The two responses did not align in terms of context understanding, language\nnuances (words and phrases), and knowledge limitations (real-time access to information, creativity,\nand originality of the query). A plagiarism check using the iThenticate software reported similarity\nindices of 11% and 14%, respectively, in document-to-document analyses. The concerns raised by\nacademicians are not unfounded, and the apprehension regarding students utilizing ChatGPT in the\nfuture revolves around ethical considerations, the potential for plagiarism, and the absence of laws\ngoverning the use of AI in medical or scientific writing.\n\n\n\nWhile AI integration in the curriculum is feasible, it should be approached with a clear\nacknowledgement of its limitations and benefits. Emphasizing the importance of critical thinking and\noriginal work is crucial for students engaging with AI tools, addressing concerns related to ethics,\nplagiarism, and potential copyright infringement in medical or scientific writings.\n","PeriodicalId":489496,"journal":{"name":"The Chinese journal of artificial intelligence","volume":"83 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Chinese journal of artificial intelligence","FirstCategoryId":"0","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/0129503752269069231213045450","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The advent of ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence (AI) model, has introduced new challenges in educational practices, particularly in the realm of scientific writing at higher educational institutions. The AI is trained on extensive datasets to generate scientific texts. Many professors and academicians express concerns about the inclusion of AI chatbots in project execution, interpretation, and writing within specialized subject curricula at the undergraduate and master’s levels. To address these concerns, we employed the ChatGPT tool by posing a specific query “Gynecomastia and the risk of non-specific lung disease, along with associated risk factors for workers in the petrochemical industry”. We conducted a comparison between responses generated by ChatGPT and real-time output from master’s students, examining document-to-document variation on different dates. The AI chatbot failed to identify potential risk factors, in contrast to the student response, which highlighted alteration in neutrophil levels, lung architecture, high IgE, elevated CO2 levels, etc. The two responses did not align in terms of context understanding, language nuances (words and phrases), and knowledge limitations (real-time access to information, creativity, and originality of the query). A plagiarism check using the iThenticate software reported similarity indices of 11% and 14%, respectively, in document-to-document analyses. The concerns raised by academicians are not unfounded, and the apprehension regarding students utilizing ChatGPT in the future revolves around ethical considerations, the potential for plagiarism, and the absence of laws governing the use of AI in medical or scientific writing. While AI integration in the curriculum is feasible, it should be approached with a clear acknowledgement of its limitations and benefits. Emphasizing the importance of critical thinking and original work is crucial for students engaging with AI tools, addressing concerns related to ethics, plagiarism, and potential copyright infringement in medical or scientific writings.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
科学写作 - ChatGPT 与实时输出:解决院士关注的问题
人工智能(AI)模型 ChatGPT 的出现给教育实践带来了新的挑战,尤其是在高等教育机构的科学写作领域。人工智能在大量数据集上进行训练,生成科学文本。为了解决这些问题,我们使用了 ChatGPT 工具,提出了一个具体的问题:"妇科炎症和非特异性肺部疾病的风险,以及石化行业工人的相关风险因素"。人工智能聊天机器人未能识别潜在的风险因素,而学生的回答则与之相反,学生的回答强调了中性粒细胞水平的变化、肺部结构、高 IgE、二氧化碳水平升高等。这两个回答在上下文理解、语言差异(单词和短语)和知识限制(实时获取信息、创造性和查询的原创性)方面并不一致。使用 iThenticate 软件进行的剽窃检查报告显示,在文档对文档的分析中,相似度指数分别为 11% 和 14%。学术界提出的担忧并非毫无根据,对学生未来使用 ChatGPT 的担忧主要集中在道德方面的考虑、剽窃的可能性以及在医学或科学写作中使用人工智能的法律缺失。强调批判性思维和原创性工作的重要性对于使用人工智能工具的学生来说至关重要,同时还要解决与医学或科学写作中的道德、抄袭和潜在版权侵权相关的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Scientific Writing – ChatGPT Versus Real-time Output: Addressing Academician’s Concern
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1