Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
Human versus Artificial Intelligence: ChatGPT-4 Outperforming Bing, Bard, ChatGPT-3.5 and Humans in Clinical Chemistry Multiple-Choice Questions
22
Zitationen
5
Autoren
2024
Jahr
Abstract
The findings indicated that ChatGPT-4 excelled in the Clinical Chemistry exam, while ChatGPT-3.5, Bing, and Bard were above average. Given that the MCQs were directed to postgraduate students with a high degree of specialization, the performance of these AI chatbots was remarkable. Due to the risk of academic dishonesty and possible dependence on these AI models, the appropriateness of MCQs as an assessment tool in higher education should be re-evaluated.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI
2019 · 8.400 Zit.
Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead
2019 · 8.261 Zit.
High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence
2018 · 7.695 Zit.
Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
2005 · 5.781 Zit.
Peeking Inside the Black-Box: A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
2018 · 5.506 Zit.