Can AI Chatbots Pass the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) and Principles and Practice of Engineering (PE) Structural Exams?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2303.18149v2
• Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2023 02:50:06 GMT
• Title: Can AI Chatbots Pass the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) and Principles and Practice of Engineering (PE) Structural Exams?
• Authors: M.Z. Naser, Brandon Ross, Jennier Ogle, Venkatesh Kodur, Rami Hawileh, Jamal Abdalla, Huu-Tai Thai
• Abstract summary: ChatGPT-4 and Bard, respectively, scored 70.9% and 39.2% in the FE exam and 46.2% and 41% in the PE exam. It is evident that the current version of ChatGPT-4 could potentially pass the FE exam.
• Score: 1.0554048699217669
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The engineering community has recently witnessed the emergence of chatbot technology with the release of OpenAI ChatGPT-4 and Google Bard. While these chatbots have been reported to perform well and even pass various standardized tests, including medical and law exams, this forum paper explores whether these chatbots can also pass the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) and Principles and Practice of Engineering (PE) exams. A diverse range of civil and environmental engineering questions and scenarios are used to evaluate the chatbots' performance, as commonly present in the FE and PE exams. The chatbots' responses were analyzed based on their relevance, accuracy, and clarity and then compared against the recommendations of the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES). Our report shows that ChatGPT-4 and Bard, respectively scored 70.9% and 39.2% in the FE exam and 46.2% and 41% in the PE exam. It is evident that the current version of ChatGPT-4 could potentially pass the FE exam. While future editions are much more likely to pass both exams, this study also highlights the potential of using chatbots as teaching assistants and guiding engineers.

Related papers

• Could ChatGPT get an Engineering Degree? Evaluating Higher Education Vulnerability to AI Assistants [175.9723801486487]
  We evaluate whether two AI assistants, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, can adequately answer assessment questions. GPT-4 answers an average of 65.8% of questions correctly, and can even produce the correct answer across at least one prompting strategy for 85.1% of questions. Our results call for revising program-level assessment design in higher education in light of advances in generative AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-07T12:11:49Z)
• Developing generative AI chatbots conceptual framework for higher education [0.0]
  This study aims to comprehend the implications of AIgeneratives on higher education and pinpoint critical elements for their efficacious implementation. The results demonstrate how much AI chatbots can do to improve student engagement, streamline the educational process, and support administrative and research duties. But there are also clear difficulties, such as unfavorable student sentiments, doubts about the veracity of material produced by AI, and unease and nervousness with new technologies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-28T10:40:26Z)
• Comparative Analysis of ChatGPT, GPT-4, and Microsoft Bing Chatbots for GRE Test [0.0]
  This research paper presents an analysis of how well three artificial intelligence chatbots: Bing, ChatGPT, and GPT-4, perform when answering questions from standardized tests. A total of 137 questions with different forms of quantitative reasoning and 157 questions with verbal categories were used to assess their capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-26T05:27:35Z)
• ChatGPT & Mechanical Engineering: Examining performance on the FE Mechanical Engineering and Undergraduate Exams [0.0]
  This study examines the capabilities of ChatGPT within the discipline of mechanical engineering. It aims to examine use cases and pitfalls of such a technology in the classroom and professional settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-26T20:12:26Z)
• UKP-SQuARE: An Interactive Tool for Teaching Question Answering [61.93372227117229]
  The exponential growth of question answering (QA) has made it an indispensable topic in any Natural Language Processing (NLP) course. We introduce UKP-SQuARE as a platform for QA education. Students can run, compare, and analyze various QA models from different perspectives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-31T11:29:04Z)
• Chatbots put to the test in math and logic problems: A preliminary comparison and assessment of ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, and Google Bard [68.8204255655161]
  We use 30 questions that are clear, without any ambiguities, fully described with plain text only, and have a unique, well defined correct answer. The answers are recorded and discussed, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses. It was found that ChatGPT-4 outperforms ChatGPT-3.5 in both sets of questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-30T11:18:05Z)
• 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)
• ChatGPT Participates in a Computer Science Exam [16.665883787432858]
  We ask ChatGPT to participate in an undergraduate computer science exam on ''Algorithms and Data Structures'' We hand-copied its answers onto an exam sheet, which was subsequently graded in a blind setup alongside those of 200 participating students. We find that ChatGPT narrowly passed the exam, obtaining 20.5 out of 40 points.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-08T15:46:14Z)
• 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)
• CheerBots: Chatbots toward Empathy and Emotionusing Reinforcement Learning [60.348822346249854]
  This study presents a framework whereby several empathetic chatbots are based on understanding users' implied feelings and replying empathetically for multiple dialogue turns. We call these chatbots CheerBots. CheerBots can be retrieval-based or generative-based and were finetuned by deep reinforcement learning. To respond in an empathetic way, we develop a simulating agent, a Conceptual Human Model, as aids for CheerBots in training with considerations on changes in user's emotional states in the future to arouse sympathy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-08T07:44:47Z)
• Put Chatbot into Its Interlocutor's Shoes: New Framework to Learn Chatbot Responding with Intention [55.77218465471519]
  This paper proposes an innovative framework to train chatbots to possess human-like intentions. Our framework included a guiding robot and an interlocutor model that plays the role of humans. We examined our framework using three experimental setups and evaluate the guiding robot with four different metrics to demonstrated flexibility and performance advantages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-30T15:24:37Z)

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

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.