ChatGPT Evaluation: Can It Replace Grammarly and Quillbot Tools?

Hussein A. younis, None Osamah Mohammed, None Muthmainnah, Thaeer Mueen Sahib, Dua'a Akhtom, Israa M. Hayder, Sani Salisu, Misbah Shahid
{"title":"ChatGPT Evaluation: Can It Replace Grammarly and Quillbot Tools?","authors":"Hussein A. younis, None Osamah Mohammed, None Muthmainnah, Thaeer Mueen Sahib, Dua'a Akhtom, Israa M. Hayder, Sani Salisu, Misbah Shahid","doi":"10.32996/bjal.2023.3.2.4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study aims to assess the capabilities of ChatGPT in comparison to widely utilized writing assistance tools such as Grammarly and Quillbot. The evaluation involves an examination of ChatGPT's performance across multiple dimensions, encompassing grammar and style correction, plagiarism detection, and overall enhancement of writing quality. Employing a series of tests and comparative analyses, this research investigates the potential suitability of ChatGPT as a viable alternative to Grammarly and Quillbot in supporting writers and enhancing the quality of written content. The outcomes and insights derived from this evaluation offer valuable guidance for individuals and professionals seeking effective writing assistance tools. This article comprehensively reviewed 10 distinct cases of Question(, covering aspects like grammar, parts of speech, proofreading, rephrasing, plagiarism detection, citation, audience engagement, writing style, tone (with a focus on optimism), and the creation of a short story complete with a title. This evaluation encompassed an assessment of various artificial intelligence tools, with specific attention given to ChatGPT. The results of this assessment demonstrated enhanced efficiency and effectiveness in achieving desired writing goals, with notable exceptions observed in addressing plagiarism and citation-related issues.","PeriodicalId":479250,"journal":{"name":"British journal of applied linguistics","volume":"21 3","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of applied linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32996/bjal.2023.3.2.4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This study aims to assess the capabilities of ChatGPT in comparison to widely utilized writing assistance tools such as Grammarly and Quillbot. The evaluation involves an examination of ChatGPT's performance across multiple dimensions, encompassing grammar and style correction, plagiarism detection, and overall enhancement of writing quality. Employing a series of tests and comparative analyses, this research investigates the potential suitability of ChatGPT as a viable alternative to Grammarly and Quillbot in supporting writers and enhancing the quality of written content. The outcomes and insights derived from this evaluation offer valuable guidance for individuals and professionals seeking effective writing assistance tools. This article comprehensively reviewed 10 distinct cases of Question(, covering aspects like grammar, parts of speech, proofreading, rephrasing, plagiarism detection, citation, audience engagement, writing style, tone (with a focus on optimism), and the creation of a short story complete with a title. This evaluation encompassed an assessment of various artificial intelligence tools, with specific attention given to ChatGPT. The results of this assessment demonstrated enhanced efficiency and effectiveness in achieving desired writing goals, with notable exceptions observed in addressing plagiarism and citation-related issues.
ChatGPT评估:它能取代语法和Quillbot工具吗?
本研究旨在评估ChatGPT与广泛使用的写作辅助工具(如Grammarly和Quillbot)的能力。评估包括对ChatGPT在多个方面的表现进行检查,包括语法和风格纠正、抄袭检测以及整体写作质量的提高。通过一系列的测试和比较分析,本研究调查了ChatGPT作为Grammarly和Quillbot的可行替代品,在支持作者和提高书面内容质量方面的潜在适用性。该评估的结果和见解为寻求有效写作辅助工具的个人和专业人士提供了有价值的指导。这篇文章全面回顾了10个不同的问题案例,涵盖了语法、词性、校对、改写、抄袭检测、引用、观众参与、写作风格、语气(重点是乐观主义)和短篇小说的创作等方面。该评估包括对各种人工智能工具的评估,特别关注ChatGPT。这次评估的结果表明,在实现预期的写作目标方面,效率和效果得到了提高,但在解决抄袭和引用相关问题方面有明显的例外。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书