Author:
Ibrahim Hazem,Liu Fengyuan,Asim Rohail,Battu Balaraju,Benabderrahmane Sidahmed,Alhafni Bashar,Adnan Wifag,Alhanai Tuka,AlShebli Bedoor,Baghdadi Riyadh,Bélanger Jocelyn J.,Beretta Elena,Celik Kemal,Chaqfeh Moumena,Daqaq Mohammed F.,Bernoussi Zaynab El,Fougnie Daryl,Garcia de Soto Borja,Gandolfi Alberto,Gyorgy Andras,Habash Nizar,Harris J. Andrew,Kaufman Aaron,Kirousis Lefteris,Kocak Korhan,Lee Kangsan,Lee Seungah S.,Malik Samreen,Maniatakos Michail,Melcher David,Mourad Azzam,Park Minsu,Rasras Mahmoud,Reuben Alicja,Zantout Dania,Gleason Nancy W.,Makovi Kinga,Rahwan Talal,Zaki Yasir
Abstract
AbstractThe emergence of large language models has led to the development of powerful tools such as ChatGPT that can produce text indistinguishable from human-generated work. With the increasing accessibility of such technology, students across the globe may utilize it to help with their school work—a possibility that has sparked ample discussion on the integrity of student evaluation processes in the age of artificial intelligence (AI). To date, it is unclear how such tools perform compared to students on university-level courses across various disciplines. Further, students’ perspectives regarding the use of such tools in school work, and educators’ perspectives on treating their use as plagiarism, remain unknown. Here, we compare the performance of the state-of-the-art tool, ChatGPT, against that of students on 32 university-level courses. We also assess the degree to which its use can be detected by two classifiers designed specifically for this purpose. Additionally, we conduct a global survey across five countries, as well as a more in-depth survey at the authors’ institution, to discern students’ and educators’ perceptions of ChatGPT’s use in school work. We find that ChatGPT’s performance is comparable, if not superior, to that of students in a multitude of courses. Moreover, current AI-text classifiers cannot reliably detect ChatGPT’s use in school work, due to both their propensity to classify human-written answers as AI-generated, as well as the relative ease with which AI-generated text can be edited to evade detection. Finally, there seems to be an emerging consensus among students to use the tool, and among educators to treat its use as plagiarism. Our findings offer insights that could guide policy discussions addressing the integration of artificial intelligence into educational frameworks.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference61 articles.
1. Larsen, B. Generative AI: A game-changer society needs to be ready for. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/01/davos23-generative-ai-a-game-changer-industries-and-society-code-developers/.
2. Ramesh, A., Dhariwal, P., Nichol, A., Chu, C. & Chen, M. Hierarchical text-conditional image generation with clip latents. arXiv preprintarXiv:2204.06125 (2022).
3. Mostaque, E. Stable Diffusion public release (2022). https://stability.ai/blog/stable-diffusion-public-release.
4. Music, A. AI music composition tools for content creators. https://www.ampermusic.com/.
5. Plaugic, L. Musician Taryn Southern on composing her new album entirely with AI (2017). https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/27/16197196/taryn-southern-album-artificial-intelligence-interview.
Cited by
48 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献