Related papers: AI and the FCI: Can ChatGPT Project an Understanding of Introductory Physics?

AI and the FCI: Can ChatGPT Project an Understanding of Introductory Physics?

URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2303.01067v2
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2023 18:18:17 GMT
Title: AI and the FCI: Can ChatGPT Project an Understanding of Introductory Physics?
Authors: Colin G. West
Abstract summary: ChatGPT is a groundbreaking AI interface built on a large language model that was trained on an enormous corpus of human text to emulate human conversation. We present a preliminary analysis of how two versions of ChatGPT fare in the field of first-semester university physics.
Score: 0.0
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Abstract: ChatGPT is a groundbreaking ``chatbot"--an AI interface built on a large language model that was trained on an enormous corpus of human text to emulate human conversation. Beyond its ability to converse in a plausible way, it has attracted attention for its ability to competently answer questions from the bar exam and from MBA coursework, and to provide useful assistance in writing computer code. These apparent abilities have prompted discussion of ChatGPT as both a threat to the integrity of higher education and conversely as a powerful teaching tool. In this work we present a preliminary analysis of how two versions of ChatGPT (ChatGPT3.5 and ChatGPT4) fare in the field of first-semester university physics, using a modified version of the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) to assess whether it can give correct responses to conceptual physics questions about kinematics and Newtonian dynamics. We demonstrate that, by some measures, ChatGPT3.5 can match or exceed the median performance of a university student who has completed one semester of college physics, though its performance is notably uneven and the results are nuanced. By these same measures, we find that ChatGPT4's performance is approaching the point of being indistinguishable from that of an expert physicist when it comes to introductory mechanics topics. After the completion of our work we became aware of Ref [1], which preceded us to publication and which completes an extensive analysis of the abilities of ChatGPT3.5 in a physics class, including a different modified version of the FCI. We view this work as confirming that portion of their results, and extending the analysis to ChatGPT4, which shows rapid and notable improvement in most, but not all respects.

Related papers

Exploring ChatGPT's Capabilities on Vulnerability Management [56.4403395100589]
We explore ChatGPT's capabilities on 6 tasks involving the complete vulnerability management process with a large-scale dataset containing 70,346 samples. One notable example is ChatGPT's proficiency in tasks like generating titles for software bug reports. Our findings reveal the difficulties encountered by ChatGPT and shed light on promising future directions.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-11T11:01:13Z)
Uncovering the Potential of ChatGPT for Discourse Analysis in Dialogue: An Empirical Study [51.079100495163736]
This paper systematically inspects ChatGPT's performance in two discourse analysis tasks: topic segmentation and discourse parsing. ChatGPT demonstrates proficiency in identifying topic structures in general-domain conversations yet struggles considerably in specific-domain conversations. Our deeper investigation indicates that ChatGPT can give more reasonable topic structures than human annotations but only linearly parses the hierarchical rhetorical structures.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-05-15T07:14:41Z)
Can ChatGPT Pass An Introductory Level Functional Language Programming Course? [2.3456295046913405]
This paper aims to explore how well ChatGPT can perform in an introductory-level functional language programming course. Our comprehensive evaluation provides valuable insights into ChatGPT's impact from both student and instructor perspectives.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-04-29T20:30:32Z)
ChatGPT-Crawler: Find out if ChatGPT really knows what it's talking about [15.19126287569545]
This research examines the responses generated by ChatGPT from different Conversational QA corpora. The study employed BERT similarity scores to compare these responses with correct answers and obtain Natural Language Inference(NLI) labels. The study identified instances where ChatGPT provided incorrect answers to questions, providing insights into areas where the model may be prone to error.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-04-06T18:42:47Z)
To ChatGPT, or not to ChatGPT: That is the question! [78.407861566006]
This study provides a comprehensive and contemporary assessment of the most recent techniques in ChatGPT detection. We have curated a benchmark dataset consisting of prompts from ChatGPT and humans, including diverse questions from medical, open Q&A, and finance domains. Our evaluation results demonstrate that none of the existing methods can effectively detect ChatGPT-generated content.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-04-04T03:04:28Z)
Advances in apparent conceptual physics reasoning in GPT-4 [0.0]
ChatGPT is built on a large language model trained on an enormous corpus of human text to emulate human conversation. Recent work has demonstrated that GPT-3.5 could pass an introductory physics course at some nominal level and register something close to a minimal understanding of Newtonian Mechanics on the Force Concept Inventory. This work replicates those results and also demonstrates that the latest version, GPT-4, has reached a much higher mark in the latter context.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-03-29T20:32:40Z)
On the Educational Impact of ChatGPT: Is Artificial Intelligence Ready to Obtain a University Degree? [0.0]
We evaluate the influence of ChatGPT on university education. We discuss how computer science higher education should adapt to tools like ChatGPT.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-03-20T14:27:37Z)
Analyzing ChatGPT's Aptitude in an Introductory Computer Engineering Course [6.531546527140474]
ChatGPT is a tool that is able to generate plausible and human-sounding text answers to various questions. This work assesses ChatGPT's aptitude in answering quizzes, homework, exam, and laboratory questions in an introductory computer engineering course.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-03-13T16:22:43Z)
Can ChatGPT Understand Too? A Comparative Study on ChatGPT and Fine-tuned BERT [103.57103957631067]
ChatGPT has attracted great attention, as it can generate fluent and high-quality responses to human inquiries. We evaluate ChatGPT's understanding ability by evaluating it on the most popular GLUE benchmark, and comparing it with 4 representative fine-tuned BERT-style models. We find that: 1) ChatGPT falls short in handling paraphrase and similarity tasks; 2) ChatGPT outperforms all BERT models on inference tasks by a large margin; 3) ChatGPT achieves comparable performance compared with BERT on sentiment analysis and question answering tasks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-02-19T12:29:33Z)
Is ChatGPT a General-Purpose Natural Language Processing Task Solver? [113.22611481694825]
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated the ability to perform a variety of natural language processing (NLP) tasks zero-shot. Recently, the debut of ChatGPT has drawn a great deal of attention from the natural language processing (NLP) community. It is not yet known whether ChatGPT can serve as a generalist model that can perform many NLP tasks zero-shot.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-02-08T09:44:51Z)
A Categorical Archive of ChatGPT Failures [47.64219291655723]
ChatGPT, developed by OpenAI, has been trained using massive amounts of data and simulates human conversation. It has garnered significant attention due to its ability to effectively answer a broad range of human inquiries. However, a comprehensive analysis of ChatGPT's failures is lacking, which is the focus of this study.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-02-06T04:21:59Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.