Text understanding in GPT-4 versus humans.

IF 2.9 3区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES Royal Society Open Science Pub Date : 2025-02-20 eCollection Date: 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1098/rsos.241313
Thomas R Shultz, Jamie M Wise, Ardavan S Nobandegani
{"title":"Text understanding in GPT-4 versus humans.","authors":"Thomas R Shultz, Jamie M Wise, Ardavan S Nobandegani","doi":"10.1098/rsos.241313","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We examine whether a leading AI system, GPT-4, understands text as well as humans do, first using a well-established standardized test of discourse comprehension. On this test, GPT-4 performs slightly, but not statistically significantly, better than humans given the very high level of human performance. Both GPT-4 and humans make correct inferences about information that is not explicitly stated in the text, a critical test of understanding. Next, we use more difficult passages to determine whether that could allow larger differences between GPT-4 and humans. GPT-4 does considerably better on this more difficult text than do the high school and university students for whom these the text passages are designed, as admission tests of student reading comprehension. Deeper exploration of GPT-4's performance on material from one of these admission tests reveals generally accepted signatures of genuine understanding, namely generalization and inference.</p>","PeriodicalId":21525,"journal":{"name":"Royal Society Open Science","volume":"12 2","pages":"241313"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11840437/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Royal Society Open Science","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.241313","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We examine whether a leading AI system, GPT-4, understands text as well as humans do, first using a well-established standardized test of discourse comprehension. On this test, GPT-4 performs slightly, but not statistically significantly, better than humans given the very high level of human performance. Both GPT-4 and humans make correct inferences about information that is not explicitly stated in the text, a critical test of understanding. Next, we use more difficult passages to determine whether that could allow larger differences between GPT-4 and humans. GPT-4 does considerably better on this more difficult text than do the high school and university students for whom these the text passages are designed, as admission tests of student reading comprehension. Deeper exploration of GPT-4's performance on material from one of these admission tests reveals generally accepted signatures of genuine understanding, namely generalization and inference.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
GPT-4与人类的文本理解。
我们研究了一个领先的人工智能系统GPT-4是否能像人类一样理解文本,首先使用了一个完善的话语理解标准化测试。在这项测试中,GPT-4的表现略好于人类,但在统计上并不显著,因为人类的表现非常高。GPT-4和人类都能对文本中没有明确说明的信息做出正确的推断,这是对理解能力的关键测试。接下来,我们使用更困难的段落来确定GPT-4和人类之间是否存在更大的差异。GPT-4在这一更难的文本上比高中和大学学生的表现要好得多,因为这些文本段落是为学生阅读理解而设计的入学考试。对GPT-4在这些入学测试之一的材料上的表现进行更深入的探索,揭示了普遍接受的真正理解的特征,即概括和推理。
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
Royal Society Open Science
Royal Society Open Science Multidisciplinary-Multidisciplinary
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
508
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Royal Society Open Science is a new open journal publishing high-quality original research across the entire range of science on the basis of objective peer-review. The journal covers the entire range of science and mathematics and will allow the Society to publish all the high-quality work it receives without the usual restrictions on scope, length or impact.
期刊最新文献
Desert lizards modulate nutritional responses to match seasonal biological needs. A dynamical measure of algorithmically infused visibility. Chicks of cavity-nesting birds do not 'exercise' prior to fledging. A total evidence approach justifies taxonomic splitting of the endangered Pecos gambusia into three species. Do scarcity-related cues affect the sustained attentional performance of the poor and the rich differently?
×
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