What's the difference between human-written manuscripts versus ChatGPT-generated manuscripts involving “human touch”?

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research Pub Date : 2025-02-05 DOI:10.1111/jog.16226
Shigeki Matsubara, Daisuke Matsubara
{"title":"What's the difference between human-written manuscripts versus ChatGPT-generated manuscripts involving “human touch”?","authors":"Shigeki Matsubara,&nbsp;Daisuke Matsubara","doi":"10.1111/jog.16226","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>To determine whether ChatGPT generates a manuscript with a “human touch” with appropriate inputs, and if yes, what's the difference between human writing versus ChatGPT writing. This is because the presence or absence of human touch may characterize human writing.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A descriptive study. The first author wrote a Disagreement Letter (Letter 1). Then, disagreement points and “human touch” were provided as input into ChatGPT-4 and tasked with generating a Letter (Letter 2). The authors, seven experienced researchers, and ChatGPT evaluated the readability of Letters 1 and 2.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The authors, researchers, and ChatGPT, all reached the same conclusions: the human-written Letter 1 and the ChatGPT-generated Letter 2 had similar readability and similarly involved human touch. Some researchers and ChatGPT recognized slight differences in formal or informal and personal or nonpersonal tones between them, which they considered may not affect paper acceptance.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Human touch is not humans' exclusive possession. The distinction between the human writing versus ChatGPT writing is considered to be present not in the output (manuscript) but in the process of writing, that is, the presence or absence of a joy of writing. Artificial intelligence should aid in enhancing, or at the very least, not impede the human joy. This discussion deserves ongoing exploration.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":16593,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research","volume":"51 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jog.16226","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim

To determine whether ChatGPT generates a manuscript with a “human touch” with appropriate inputs, and if yes, what's the difference between human writing versus ChatGPT writing. This is because the presence or absence of human touch may characterize human writing.

Methods

A descriptive study. The first author wrote a Disagreement Letter (Letter 1). Then, disagreement points and “human touch” were provided as input into ChatGPT-4 and tasked with generating a Letter (Letter 2). The authors, seven experienced researchers, and ChatGPT evaluated the readability of Letters 1 and 2.

Results

The authors, researchers, and ChatGPT, all reached the same conclusions: the human-written Letter 1 and the ChatGPT-generated Letter 2 had similar readability and similarly involved human touch. Some researchers and ChatGPT recognized slight differences in formal or informal and personal or nonpersonal tones between them, which they considered may not affect paper acceptance.

Conclusions

Human touch is not humans' exclusive possession. The distinction between the human writing versus ChatGPT writing is considered to be present not in the output (manuscript) but in the process of writing, that is, the presence or absence of a joy of writing. Artificial intelligence should aid in enhancing, or at the very least, not impede the human joy. This discussion deserves ongoing exploration.

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
人类撰写的手稿与chatgpt生成的涉及“人类触摸”的手稿有什么区别?
目的:确定ChatGPT生成的手稿是否具有“人情味”和适当的输入,如果是,人类写作与ChatGPT写作之间的区别是什么。这是因为人类写作的特征可能是人类触摸的存在与否。方法采用描述性研究。第一作者写了一封不同意信(Letter 1)。然后,不同意点和“人情味”被提供给ChatGPT-4,并被要求生成一封信(Letter 2)。作者、7位经验丰富的研究人员和ChatGPT评估了信件1和2的可读性。作者、研究人员和ChatGPT都得出了相同的结论:人类写的字母1和ChatGPT生成的字母2具有相似的可读性和相似的人情味。一些研究人员和ChatGPT认识到他们之间在正式或非正式、个人或非个人语气方面的细微差异,他们认为这可能不会影响论文的接受度。人类的触觉并不是人类独有的。人类写作与ChatGPT写作的区别被认为不存在于输出(手稿)中,而存在于写作的过程中,也就是说,是否存在写作的乐趣。人工智能应该有助于增强,或者至少不会阻碍人类的快乐。这一讨论值得继续探讨。
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
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
376
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research is the official Journal of the Asia and Oceania Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology and of the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and aims to provide a medium for the publication of articles in the fields of obstetrics and gynecology. The Journal publishes original research articles, case reports, review articles and letters to the editor. The Journal will give publication priority to original research articles over case reports. Accepted papers become the exclusive licence of the Journal. Manuscripts are peer reviewed by at least two referees and/or Associate Editors expert in the field of the submitted paper.
期刊最新文献
Medical Management of Interstitial Pregnancy With Methotrexate: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Case Reports and Case Series. Clinical Characteristics and Management of Ovarian Endometrioma Complicated by Infertility Treatment-Induced Tubo-Ovarian Abscess: A Retrospective Study. Psychosocial Burden of Women With Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia in Japan: Results of A Web-Based Survey. Effects of Kegel Exercises on Women With Urinary Incontinence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Issue Information
×
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:604180095
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