How critically can an AI think? A framework for evaluating the quality of thinking of generative artificial intelligence

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.14769v1
• Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 22:46:56 GMT
• Title: How critically can an AI think? A framework for evaluating the quality of thinking of generative artificial intelligence
• Authors: Luke Zaphir, Jason M. Lodge, Jacinta Lisec, Dom McGrath, Hassan Khosravi,
• Abstract summary: Generative AI such as those with large language models have created opportunities for innovative assessment design practices. This paper presents a framework that explores the capabilities of the LLM ChatGPT4 application, which is the current industry benchmark. This critique will provide specific and targeted indications of their questions vulnerabilities in terms of the critical thinking skills.
• Score: 0.9671462473115854
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Generative AI such as those with large language models have created opportunities for innovative assessment design practices. Due to recent technological developments, there is a need to know the limits and capabilities of generative AI in terms of simulating cognitive skills. Assessing student critical thinking skills has been a feature of assessment for time immemorial, but the demands of digital assessment create unique challenges for equity, academic integrity and assessment authorship. Educators need a framework for determining their assessments vulnerability to generative AI to inform assessment design practices. This paper presents a framework that explores the capabilities of the LLM ChatGPT4 application, which is the current industry benchmark. This paper presents the Mapping of questions, AI vulnerability testing, Grading, Evaluation (MAGE) framework to methodically critique their assessments within their own disciplinary contexts. This critique will provide specific and targeted indications of their questions vulnerabilities in terms of the critical thinking skills. This can go on to form the basis of assessment design for their tasks.

Related papers

• Computer Vision Intelligence Test Modeling and Generation: A Case Study on Smart OCR [3.0561992956541606]
  We first present a comprehensive literature review of previous work, covering key facets of AI software testing processes. We then introduce a 3D classification model to systematically evaluate the image-based text extraction AI function. To evaluate the performance of our proposed AI software quality test, we propose four evaluation metrics to cover different aspects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-14T23:33:28Z)
• Good Idea or Not, Representation of LLM Could Tell [86.36317971482755]
  We focus on idea assessment, which aims to leverage the knowledge of large language models to assess the merit of scientific ideas. We release a benchmark dataset from nearly four thousand manuscript papers with full texts, meticulously designed to train and evaluate the performance of different approaches to this task. Our findings suggest that the representations of large language models hold more potential in quantifying the value of ideas than their generative outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-07T02:07:22Z)
• 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)
• A Conceptual Framework for Ethical Evaluation of Machine Learning Systems [12.887834116390358]
  Ethical implications appear when designing evaluations of machine learning systems. We present a utility framework, characterizing the key trade-off in ethical evaluation as balancing information gain against potential ethical harms. Our analysis underscores the critical need for development teams to deliberately assess and manage ethical complexities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-05T01:06:49Z)
• ConSiDERS-The-Human Evaluation Framework: Rethinking Human Evaluation for Generative Large Language Models [53.00812898384698]
  We argue that human evaluation of generative large language models (LLMs) should be a multidisciplinary undertaking. We highlight how cognitive biases can conflate fluent information and truthfulness, and how cognitive uncertainty affects the reliability of rating scores such as Likert. We propose the ConSiDERS-The-Human evaluation framework consisting of 6 pillars -- Consistency, Scoring Criteria, Differentiating, User Experience, Responsible, and Scalability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-28T22:45:28Z)
• CriticEval: Evaluating Large Language Model as Critic [110.29766259843453]
  CriticEval is a novel benchmark designed to comprehensively and reliably evaluate critique ability of Large Language Models. To ensure the comprehensiveness, CriticEval evaluates critique ability from four dimensions across nine diverse task scenarios. To ensure the reliability, a large number of critiques are annotated to serve as references.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-21T12:38:59Z)
• Evaluating General-Purpose AI with Psychometrics [43.85432514910491]
  We discuss the need for a comprehensive and accurate evaluation of general-purpose AI systems such as large language models. Current evaluation methodology, mostly based on benchmarks of specific tasks, falls short of adequately assessing these versatile AI systems. To tackle these challenges, we suggest transitioning from task-oriented evaluation to construct-oriented evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-25T05:38:38Z)
• Model evaluation for extreme risks [46.53170857607407]
  Further progress in AI development could lead to capabilities that pose extreme risks, such as offensive cyber capabilities or strong manipulation skills. We explain why model evaluation is critical for addressing extreme risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T16:38:43Z)
• Modelling Assessment Rubrics through Bayesian Networks: a Pragmatic Approach [40.06500618820166]
  This paper presents an approach to deriving a learner model directly from an assessment rubric. We illustrate how the approach can be applied to automatize the human assessment of an activity developed for testing computational thinking skills.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-07T10:09:12Z)
• An interdisciplinary conceptual study of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for helping benefit-risk assessment practices: Towards a comprehensive qualification matrix of AI programs and devices (pre-print 2020) [55.41644538483948]
  This paper proposes a comprehensive analysis of existing concepts coming from different disciplines tackling the notion of intelligence. The aim is to identify shared notions or discrepancies to consider for qualifying AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-07T12:01:31Z)

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.