ChatGPT and the Generation of Digitally Born “Knowledge”: How Does a Generative AI Language Model Interpret Cultural Heritage Values?

Dirk H. R. Spennemann
{"title":"ChatGPT and the Generation of Digitally Born “Knowledge”: How Does a Generative AI Language Model Interpret Cultural Heritage Values?","authors":"Dirk H. R. Spennemann","doi":"10.3390/knowledge3030032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The public release of ChatGPT, a generative artificial intelligence language model, caused wide-spread public interest in its abilities but also concern about the implications of the application on academia, depending on whether it was deemed benevolent (e.g., supporting analysis and simplification of tasks) or malevolent (e.g., assignment writing and academic misconduct). While ChatGPT has been shown to provide answers of sufficient quality to pass some university exams, its capacity to write essays that require an exploration of value concepts is unknown. This paper presents the results of a study where ChatGPT-4 (released May 2023) was tasked with writing a 1500-word essay to discuss the nature of values used in the assessment of cultural heritage significance. Based on an analysis of 36 iterations, ChatGPT wrote essays of limited length with about 50% of the stipulated word count being primarily descriptive and without any depth or complexity. The concepts, which are often flawed and suffer from inverted logic, are presented in an arbitrary sequence with limited coherence and without any defined line of argument. Given that it is a generative language model, ChatGPT often splits concepts and uses one or more words to develop tangential arguments. While ChatGPT provides references as tasked, many are fictitious, albeit with plausible authors and titles. At present, ChatGPT has the ability to critique its own work but seems unable to incorporate that critique in a meaningful way to improve a previous draft. Setting aside conceptual flaws such as inverted logic, several of the essays could possibly pass as a junior high school assignment but fall short of what would be expected in senior school, let alone at a college or university level.","PeriodicalId":74770,"journal":{"name":"Science of aging knowledge environment : SAGE KE","volume":"187 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science of aging knowledge environment : SAGE KE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/knowledge3030032","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The public release of ChatGPT, a generative artificial intelligence language model, caused wide-spread public interest in its abilities but also concern about the implications of the application on academia, depending on whether it was deemed benevolent (e.g., supporting analysis and simplification of tasks) or malevolent (e.g., assignment writing and academic misconduct). While ChatGPT has been shown to provide answers of sufficient quality to pass some university exams, its capacity to write essays that require an exploration of value concepts is unknown. This paper presents the results of a study where ChatGPT-4 (released May 2023) was tasked with writing a 1500-word essay to discuss the nature of values used in the assessment of cultural heritage significance. Based on an analysis of 36 iterations, ChatGPT wrote essays of limited length with about 50% of the stipulated word count being primarily descriptive and without any depth or complexity. The concepts, which are often flawed and suffer from inverted logic, are presented in an arbitrary sequence with limited coherence and without any defined line of argument. Given that it is a generative language model, ChatGPT often splits concepts and uses one or more words to develop tangential arguments. While ChatGPT provides references as tasked, many are fictitious, albeit with plausible authors and titles. At present, ChatGPT has the ability to critique its own work but seems unable to incorporate that critique in a meaningful way to improve a previous draft. Setting aside conceptual flaws such as inverted logic, several of the essays could possibly pass as a junior high school assignment but fall short of what would be expected in senior school, let alone at a college or university level.
聊天技术与数字化“知识”的生成:生成式AI语言模型如何解读文化遗产价值?
ChatGPT是一种生成式人工智能语言模型,它的公开发布引起了公众对其能力的广泛兴趣,但也引起了对该应用程序对学术界的影响的关注,这取决于它是被认为是仁慈的(例如,支持分析和简化任务)还是恶意的(例如,作业写作和学术不端行为)。虽然ChatGPT已被证明能够提供足够质量的答案,以通过一些大学考试,但其撰写需要探索价值概念的论文的能力尚不清楚。本文介绍了一项研究的结果,该研究要求chatggt -4(发布于2023年5月)撰写一篇1500字的文章,讨论用于文化遗产意义评估的价值观的性质。基于对36次迭代的分析,ChatGPT撰写了有限长度的文章,其中约50%的规定字数主要是描述性的,没有任何深度或复杂性。这些概念往往是有缺陷的,并受到反向逻辑的影响,它们以有限的连贯性和没有任何明确的论证线的任意顺序呈现。由于ChatGPT是一种生成语言模型,因此它经常拆分概念,并使用一个或多个单词来开发无关的论点。虽然ChatGPT按要求提供参考资料,但许多都是虚构的,尽管作者和标题似乎是可信的。目前,ChatGPT有能力对自己的工作进行评论,但似乎无法以一种有意义的方式将这些评论纳入到之前的草案中。撇开逻辑颠倒等概念上的缺陷不谈,其中一些文章可能可以作为初中作业通过,但却达不到高中作业的要求,更不用说大学或学院水平了。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信