Pub Date : 2024-01-26DOI: 10.2174/0129503752269069231213045450
F. Anwar, Salman Bakr I. Hosawi, Fahad A. Al-Abbasi, T. Asar
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.
{"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":"https://doi.org/10.2174/0129503752269069231213045450","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000\u0000The advent of ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence (AI) model, has introduced\u0000new challenges in educational practices, particularly in the realm of scientific writing at higher\u0000educational institutions. The AI is trained on extensive datasets to generate scientific texts. Many\u0000professors and academicians express concerns about the inclusion of AI chatbots in project execution,\u0000interpretation, and writing within specialized subject curricula at the undergraduate and master’s\u0000levels.\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000To address these concerns, we employed the ChatGPT tool by posing a specific query\u0000“Gynecomastia and the risk of non-specific lung disease, along with associated risk factors for workers\u0000in the petrochemical industry”. We conducted a comparison between responses generated by\u0000ChatGPT and real-time output from master’s students, examining document-to-document variation\u0000on different dates.\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000The AI chatbot failed to identify potential risk factors, in contrast to the\u0000student response, which highlighted alteration in neutrophil levels, lung architecture, high IgE, elevated\u0000CO2 levels, etc. The two responses did not align in terms of context understanding, language\u0000nuances (words and phrases), and knowledge limitations (real-time access to information, creativity,\u0000and originality of the query). A plagiarism check using the iThenticate software reported similarity\u0000indices of 11% and 14%, respectively, in document-to-document analyses. The concerns raised by\u0000academicians are not unfounded, and the apprehension regarding students utilizing ChatGPT in the\u0000future revolves around ethical considerations, the potential for plagiarism, and the absence of laws\u0000governing the use of AI in medical or scientific writing.\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000While AI integration in the curriculum is feasible, it should be approached with a clear\u0000acknowledgement of its limitations and benefits. Emphasizing the importance of critical thinking and\u0000original work is crucial for students engaging with AI tools, addressing concerns related to ethics,\u0000plagiarism, and potential copyright infringement in medical or scientific writings.\u0000","PeriodicalId":489496,"journal":{"name":"The Chinese journal of artificial intelligence","volume":"83 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140494325","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：