比较 ChatGPT、Bing Chat 和 Bard 三个聊天机器人的听力知识。

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q2 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY
W Wiktor Jedrzejczak, Krzysztof Kochanek
{"title":"比较 ChatGPT、Bing Chat 和 Bard 三个聊天机器人的听力知识。","authors":"W Wiktor Jedrzejczak, Krzysztof Kochanek","doi":"10.1159/000538983","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The purpose of this study was to evaluate three chatbots - OpenAI ChatGPT, Microsoft Bing Chat (currently Copilot), and Google Bard (currently Gemini) - in terms of their responses to a defined set of audiological questions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Each chatbot was presented with the same 10 questions. The authors rated the responses on a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5. Additional features, such as the number of inaccuracies or errors and the provision of references, were also examined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most responses given by all three chatbots were rated as satisfactory or better. However, all chatbots generated at least a few errors or inaccuracies. ChatGPT achieved the highest overall score, while Bard was the worst. Bard was also the only chatbot unable to provide a response to one of the questions. ChatGPT was the only chatbot that did not provide information about its sources.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Chatbots are an intriguing tool that can be used to access basic information in a specialized area like audiology. Nevertheless, one needs to be careful, as correct information is not infrequently mixed in with errors that are hard to pick up unless the user is well versed in the field.</p>","PeriodicalId":55432,"journal":{"name":"Audiology and Neuro-Otology","volume":" ","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the Audiological Knowledge of Three Chatbots: ChatGPT, Bing Chat, and Bard.\",\"authors\":\"W Wiktor Jedrzejczak, Krzysztof Kochanek\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000538983\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The purpose of this study was to evaluate three chatbots - OpenAI ChatGPT, Microsoft Bing Chat (currently Copilot), and Google Bard (currently Gemini) - in terms of their responses to a defined set of audiological questions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Each chatbot was presented with the same 10 questions. The authors rated the responses on a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5. Additional features, such as the number of inaccuracies or errors and the provision of references, were also examined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most responses given by all three chatbots were rated as satisfactory or better. However, all chatbots generated at least a few errors or inaccuracies. ChatGPT achieved the highest overall score, while Bard was the worst. Bard was also the only chatbot unable to provide a response to one of the questions. ChatGPT was the only chatbot that did not provide information about its sources.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Chatbots are an intriguing tool that can be used to access basic information in a specialized area like audiology. Nevertheless, one needs to be careful, as correct information is not infrequently mixed in with errors that are hard to pick up unless the user is well versed in the field.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55432,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Audiology and Neuro-Otology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-7\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Audiology and Neuro-Otology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000538983\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Audiology and Neuro-Otology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000538983","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介本研究旨在评估 OpenAI ChatGPT、Microsoft Bing Chat(目前为 Copilot)和 Google Bard(目前为 Gemini)这三种聊天机器人对一组特定听力问题的回答情况:方法:每个聊天机器人都要回答同样的 10 个问题。方法:每个聊天机器人都回答了同样的 10 个问题,作者用 1 到 5 分的李克特量表对回答进行评分。作者还考察了其他特征,如不准确或错误的数量以及提供参考资料的情况:所有三个聊天机器人给出的大多数回复都被评为满意或更好。不过,所有聊天机器人都至少出现了一些错误或不准确之处。ChatGPT 的总分最高,而 Bard 的总分最差。Bard 也是唯一一个无法回答其中一个问题的聊天机器人。ChatGPT 是唯一一个没有提供信息来源的聊天机器人:聊天机器人是一种有趣的工具,可用于获取听力学等专业领域的基本信息。然而,我们需要小心谨慎,因为正确的信息中经常夹杂着错误,除非用户精通该领域,否则很难发现这些错误。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of the Audiological Knowledge of Three Chatbots: ChatGPT, Bing Chat, and Bard.

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to evaluate three chatbots - OpenAI ChatGPT, Microsoft Bing Chat (currently Copilot), and Google Bard (currently Gemini) - in terms of their responses to a defined set of audiological questions.

Methods: Each chatbot was presented with the same 10 questions. The authors rated the responses on a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5. Additional features, such as the number of inaccuracies or errors and the provision of references, were also examined.

Results: Most responses given by all three chatbots were rated as satisfactory or better. However, all chatbots generated at least a few errors or inaccuracies. ChatGPT achieved the highest overall score, while Bard was the worst. Bard was also the only chatbot unable to provide a response to one of the questions. ChatGPT was the only chatbot that did not provide information about its sources.

Conclusions: Chatbots are an intriguing tool that can be used to access basic information in a specialized area like audiology. Nevertheless, one needs to be careful, as correct information is not infrequently mixed in with errors that are hard to pick up unless the user is well versed in the field.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Audiology and Neuro-Otology
Audiology and Neuro-Otology 医学-耳鼻喉科学
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
6.20%
发文量
35
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: ''Audiology and Neurotology'' provides a forum for the publication of the most-advanced and rigorous scientific research related to the basic science and clinical aspects of the auditory and vestibular system and diseases of the ear. This journal seeks submission of cutting edge research opening up new and innovative fields of study that may improve our understanding and treatment of patients with disorders of the auditory and vestibular systems, their central connections and their perception in the central nervous system. In addition to original papers the journal also offers invited review articles on current topics written by leading experts in the field. The journal is of primary importance for all scientists and practitioners interested in audiology, otology and neurotology, auditory neurosciences and related disciplines.
×
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