An evaluation of ChatGPT and Bard (Gemini) in the context of biological knowledge retrieval

R. Caspi, Peter D. Karp
{"title":"An evaluation of ChatGPT and Bard (Gemini) in the context of biological knowledge retrieval","authors":"R. Caspi, Peter D. Karp","doi":"10.1099/acmi.0.000790.v3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ChatGPT and Bard (now called Gemini), two conversational AI models developed by OpenAI and Google AI, respectively, have garnered considerable attention for their ability to engage in natural language conversations and perform various language-related tasks. While the versatility of these chatbots in generating text and simulating human-like conversations is undeniable, we wanted to evaluate their effectiveness in retrieving biological knowledge for curation and research purposes. To do so we asked each chatbot a series of questions and scored their answers based on their quality. Out of a maximal score of 24, ChatGPT scored 5 and Bard scored 13. The encountered issues included missing information, incorrect answers, and instances where responses combine accurate and inaccurate details. Notably, both tools tend to fabricate references to scientific papers, undermining their usability. In light of these findings, we recommend that biologists continue to rely on traditional sources while periodically assessing the reliability of ChatGPT and Bard. As ChatGPT aptly suggested, for specific and up-to-date scientific information, established scientific journals, databases, and subject-matter experts remain the preferred avenues for trustworthy data.","PeriodicalId":6956,"journal":{"name":"Access Microbiology","volume":"18 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Access Microbiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1099/acmi.0.000790.v3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ChatGPT and Bard (now called Gemini), two conversational AI models developed by OpenAI and Google AI, respectively, have garnered considerable attention for their ability to engage in natural language conversations and perform various language-related tasks. While the versatility of these chatbots in generating text and simulating human-like conversations is undeniable, we wanted to evaluate their effectiveness in retrieving biological knowledge for curation and research purposes. To do so we asked each chatbot a series of questions and scored their answers based on their quality. Out of a maximal score of 24, ChatGPT scored 5 and Bard scored 13. The encountered issues included missing information, incorrect answers, and instances where responses combine accurate and inaccurate details. Notably, both tools tend to fabricate references to scientific papers, undermining their usability. In light of these findings, we recommend that biologists continue to rely on traditional sources while periodically assessing the reliability of ChatGPT and Bard. As ChatGPT aptly suggested, for specific and up-to-date scientific information, established scientific journals, databases, and subject-matter experts remain the preferred avenues for trustworthy data.
在生物知识检索方面对 ChatGPT 和 Bard (Gemini) 的评估
ChatGPT 和 Bard(现名为 Gemini)是 OpenAI 和 Google AI 分别开发的两个对话式人工智能模型,它们能够进行自然语言对话并执行各种与语言相关的任务,因而备受关注。虽然这些聊天机器人在生成文本和模拟人类对话方面的多功能性是毋庸置疑的,但我们还是想评估它们在检索生物知识以进行整理和研究方面的有效性。为此,我们向每个聊天机器人提出了一系列问题,并根据它们的回答质量进行评分。在 24 分的最高分中,ChatGPT 得 5 分,Bard 得 13 分。遇到的问题包括信息缺失、答案不正确,以及回答兼具准确和不准确细节的情况。值得注意的是,这两款工具都有编造科学论文参考文献的倾向,削弱了其可用性。鉴于这些发现,我们建议生物学家继续依赖传统来源,同时定期评估 ChatGPT 和 Bard 的可靠性。正如 ChatGPT 恰如其分地建议的那样,对于具体和最新的科学信息,成熟的科学期刊、数据库和主题专家仍然是获取可信数据的首选途径。
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