My AI students: Evaluating the proficiency of three AI chatbots in completeness and accuracy

Reginald Gerald Govender

doi:10.30935/cedtech/14564

My AI students: Evaluating the proficiency of three AI chatbots in completeness and accuracy

Reginald Gerald Govender ¹ ^*

More Detail

CONT ED TECHNOLOGY, Volume 16, Issue 2, Article No: ep509

https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/14564

Submitted: 27 December 2023, Published Online: 26 April 2024

OPEN ACCESS 1141 Views 857 Downloads

Download Full Text (PDF)

Abstract

A new era of artificial intelligence (AI) has begun, which can radically alter how humans interact with and profit from technology. The confluence of chat interfaces with large language models lets humans write a natural language inquiry and receive a natural language response from a machine. This experimental design study tests the capabilities of three popular AI chatbot services referred to as my AI students: Microsoft Bing, Google Bard, and OpenAI ChatGPT on completeness and accuracy. A Likert scale was used to rate completeness and accuracy, respectively, a three-point and five-point. Descriptive statistics and non-parametric tests were used to compare marks and scale ratings. The results show that AI chatbots were awarded a score of 80.0% overall. However, they struggled with answering questions from the higher Bloom’s taxonomic levels. The median completeness was 3.00 with a mean of 2.75 and the median accuracy was 5.00 with a mean of 4.48 across all Bloom’s taxonomy questions (n=128). Overall, the completeness of the solution was rated mostly incomplete due to limited response (76.2%), while accuracy was rated mostly correct (83.3%). In some cases, generative text was found to be verbose and disembodied, lacking perspective and coherency. Microsoft Bing ranked first among the three AI text generative tools in providing correct answers (92.0%). The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed a significant difference in completeness (asymp. sig.=0.037, p<0.05) and accuracy (asymp. sig.=0.006, p<0.05) among the three AI chatbots. A series of Mann and Whitney tests were carried out showing no significance between AI chatbots for completeness (all p-values>0.015 and 0<r<0.2), while a significant difference was found for accuracy between Google Bard and Microsoft Bing (asymp. sig.=0.002, p<0.05, r=0.3 medium effect). The findings suggest that while AI chatbots can generate comprehensive and correct responses, they may have limits when dealing with more complicated cognitive tasks.

Keywords: artificial intelligence, chatbots, generative text, completeness, accuracy

References

Adiguzel, T., Kaya, M. H., & Cansu, F. K. (2023). Revolutionizing education with AI: Exploring the transformative potential of ChatGPT. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(3), ep429. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13152
Allam, H., Dempere, J., Akre, V., Parakash, D., Mazher, N., & Ahamed, J. (2023). Artificial intelligence in education: An argument of Chat-GPT use in education. In Proceedings of the 9^thInternational Conference on Information Technology Trends (pp. 151-156). https://doi.org/10.1109/ITT59889.2023.10184267
Berrar, D. P., & Schuster, A. (2014). Computing machinery and creativity: Lessons learned from the Turing test. Kybernetes, 43(1), 82-91. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-08-2013-0175
Bibi, W., Butt, M. N., & Reba, A. (2020). Relating teachers’ questioning techniques with students’ learning within the context of Bloom’s taxonomy. FWU Journal of Social Sciences, 14(1), 111-119.
Blooma, M. J., Chua, A. Y., & Goh, D. H. L. (2008). A predictive framework for retrieving the best answer. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM symposium on Applied Computing (pp. 1107-1111). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1363686.1363944
Borenstein, J., & Howard, A. (2021). Emerging challenges in AI and the need for AI ethics education. AI Ethics, 1, 61-65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-020-00002-7
Buchholz, K. (2023). ChatGPT sprints to one million users. Statista. https://www.statista.com/chart/29174/time-to-one-million-users/
Carter, C. (2023). Machines hacking machines–Turing’s legacy. In R. K. Nichols, C. M. Carter, C. Diebold, J. Drew, M. Farcot, J. P. Hood, M. J. Jackson, P. Johnson, S. Joseph, S. Khan, W. D. Lonstein, R. McCreight, T. Muehlfelder, H. C. Mumm, J. C. H. Ryan, S. M. Sincavage, W. Slofer, & J. Toebes (Eds.), Cyber-human systems, space technologies, and threats. https://kstatelibraries.pressbooks.pub/cyberhumansystems/chapter/6-machines-hacking-machines-turings-legacy-carter
Chen, Y., Jensen, S., Albert, L. J., Gupta, S., & Lee, T. (2023). Artificial intelligence (AI) student assistants in the classroom: Designing chatbots to support student success. Information Systems Frontiers, 25(1), 161-182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-022-10291-4
Dheda, G. (2023). Can Turnitin detect ChatGPT? Open AI Master. https://openaimaster.com/can-turnitin-detect-chat-gpt/
Edelsbrunner, P., & Thurn, C. (2023). Improving the utility of non-significant results for educational research: A review and recommendations. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/uxzwg
Emerson, R. W. (2020). Bonferroni correction and type I error. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 114(1), 77-78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X20901378
Fichman, P. (2011). A comparative assessment of answer quality on four question answering sites. Journal of Information Science, 37(5), 476-486. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551511415584
Forehand, M. (2010). Bloom’s taxonomy. Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching, and Technology, 41(4), 47-56.
Garg, M., & Goel, A. (2022). A systematic literature review on online assessment security: Current challenges and integrity strategies. Computers & Security, 113(6), 102544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2021.102544
Gonçalves, B. (2023). The Turing test is a thought experiment. Minds and Machines, 33(1), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-022-09616-8
Govender, R. G. (2021). Embracing the fourth industrial revolution by developing a more relevant educational spectrum. In J. Naidoo (Ed.), Teaching and learning in the 21st century (pp. 30-49). Brill. https://doi.org/10. 1163/9789004460386_003
Gulyamov, S., & Rustambekovich, R. S. (2023). Code of ethics for the responsible use of AI (chatbots) in science, education and professional activities. Uzbek Journal of Law and Digital Policy, 1(3).
Hodges, A. (2009). Alan Turing and the Turing Test. In R. Epstein, G. Roberts, & G. Beber (Eds.), Parsing the Turing Test. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6710-5_2
Hwang, G. J., & Chang, C. Y. (2023). A review of opportunities and challenges of chatbots in education. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(7), 4099-4112. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1952615
Jabotinsky, H. Y., & Sarel, R. (2022). Co-authoring with an AI? Ethical dilemmas and artificial intelligence. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4303959
Jannai, D., Meron, A., Lenz, B., Levine, Y., & Shoham, Y. (2023). Human or not? A gamified approach to the Turing test. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.20010
John, B. M., Chua, A. Y. K., & Goh, D. H. L. (2010). What makes a high-quality user-generated answer? IEEE Internet Computing, 15(1), 66-71. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIC.2011.23
Jones, K., & Sharma, R. S. (2020). On reimagining a future for online learning in the post-COVID-19 era. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3578310
Khurana, D., Koli, A., Khatter, K., & Singh, S. (2023). Natural language processing: State of the art, current trends and challenges. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 82(3), 3713-3744. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-022-13428-4
Lee, D., & Yeo, S. (2022). Developing an AI-based chatbot for practicing responsive teaching in mathematics. Computers & Education, 191(2022), 104646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104646
Li, L., He, D., & Zhang, C. (2016). Evaluating academic answer quality: A pilot study on ResearchGate Q&A. In F. H. Nah, & C. H. Tan (Eds.), HCI in business, government, and organizations: eCommerce and innovation (pp. 1-14). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39396-4_6
Marcus, G., Rossi, F., & Veloso, M. (2016). Beyond the Turing test. AI Magazine, 37(1), 3-4. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v37i1.2650
McKight, P.E. & Najab, J. (2010) Kruskal-Wallis test. In The Corsini encyclopedia of psychology (pp. 1-10). https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470479216.corpsy0491
Microsoft. (2023). What is Bing Chat, and how can you use it? Microsoft. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/bing/do-more-with-ai/what-is-bing-chat-and-how-can-you-use-it?form=MA13KP
Moor, J. H. (1976). An analysis of the Turing test. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, 30(4), 249-257. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00372497
Naidu, S. (2022). Reimagining and reengineering education systems for the post-COVID-19 era. Distance Education, 43(1), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2022.2029652
Newton, P. M., & Keioni, E. (2022). How common is cheating in online exams and did it increase during the COVID-19 pandemic? A systematic review. Journal of Academic Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-023-09485-5
Nguyen, C. (2021). The accuracy and completeness of drug information in Google snippet blocks. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 109(4), 613. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.1229
Nilsen, E. B., Bowler, D. E., & Linnell, J. D. (2020). Exploratory and confirmatory research in the open science era. Journal of Applied Ecology, 57(4), 842-847. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13571
Okonkwo, C. W., & Ade-Ibijola, A. (2021). Chatbots applications in education: A systematic review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100033
Radford, A., Wu, J., Amodei, D., Amodei, D., Clark, J., Brundage, M., & Sutskever, I. (2019). OpenAI. https://openai.com/research/better-language-models
Ramesh, D., & Sanampudi, S. K. (2022). An automated essay scoring systems: A systematic literature review. Artificial Intelligence Review, 55(3), 2495-2527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-021-10068-2
Selwyn, N. (2022). The future of AI and education: Some cautionary notes. European Journal of Education, 57(4), 620-631. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12532
Shieber, S. M. (1994). Lessons from a restricted Turing test. ArXiv. https://doi.org/10.1145/175208.175217
Shin, B. (2023). The Turing test for measuring AI intelligence is outdated because of ChatGPT’s wizardry, and a new test would be better. Fortune. https://fortune.com/2023/06/20/turing-test-proposed-update-ai-chatgpt-deepmind-cofounder/
Strzelecki, A. (2023). To use or not to use ChatGPT in higher education? A study of students’ acceptance and use of technology. Interactive Learning Environments. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2209881
Su, J., & Yang, W. (2023). Unlocking the power of ChatGPT: A framework for applying generative AI in education. ECNU Review of Education, 6(3), 355-366. https://doi.org/10.1177/20965311231168423
Taylor, R. S. (1986). Value-added processes in information systems. Greenwood Publishing Group.
Theophilou, E., Koyuturk, C., Yavari, M., Bursic, S., Donabauer, G., Telari, A., Testa, A., Boiano, R., Hernandez-Leo, D., Ruskov, M., Taibi, D., Gabbiadini, A., & Ognibene, D. (2023). Learning to prompt in the classroom to understand AI limits: A pilot study. In R. Basili, D. Lembo, C. Limongelli, & A. Orlandini (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22^nd International Conference of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence (pp. 481-496). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47546-7_33
Tlili, A., Shehata, B., Adarkwah, M. A., Bozkurt, A., Hickey, D. T., Huang, R., & Agyemang, B. (2023). What if the devil is my guardian angel: ChatGPT as a case study of using chatbots in education. Smart Learning Environments, 10, 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00237-x
Turing, A. M. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59, 433-60. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433
Visentin, D. C., Cleary, M., & Hunt, G. E. (2020). The earnestness of being important: Reporting non-significant statistical results. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 76(4), 917-919. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14283
Wang, J. (2023). ChatGPT: A test drive. American Journal of Physics, 91(4), 255-256. https://doi.org/10.1119/5.0145897
Wang, J., Liu, Y., Li, P., Lin, Z., Sindakis, S., & Aggarwal, S. (2023). Overview of data quality: Examining the dimensions, antecedents, and impacts of data quality. Journal of the Knowledge Economy. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-022-01096-6
Yin, D., Dong, L., Cheng, H., Liu, X., Chang, K. W., Wei, F., & Gao, J. (2022). A survey of knowledge-intensive NLP with pre-trained language models. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2202.08772
Zamfirescu-Pereira, J. D., Wong, R. Y., Hartmann, B., & Yang, Q. (2023). Why Johnny can’t prompt: how non-AI experts try (and fail) to design LLM prompts. In A. Schmidt., K. Väänänen, T. Goyal, P. O. Kristensson, A. Peters, S. Mueller, J. R. Williamson, & M. L. Wilson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-21). https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581388
Zhu, L., Mou, W., Yang, T., & Chen, R. (2023). ChatGPT can pass the AHA exams: Open-ended questions outperform multiple-choice format. Resuscitation, 188, 109783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2023.109783

Citation

Govender, R. G. (2024). My AI students: Evaluating the proficiency of three AI chatbots in completeness and accuracy. Contemporary Educational Technology, 16(2), ep509. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/14564

Govender, R. G. (2024). My AI students: Evaluating the proficiency of three AI chatbots in completeness and accuracy. Contemporary Educational Technology, 16(2), ep509. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/14564

Govender RG. My AI students: Evaluating the proficiency of three AI chatbots in completeness and accuracy. CONT ED TECHNOLOGY. 2024;16(2), ep509. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/14564

Govender, Reginald Gerald. "My AI students: Evaluating the proficiency of three AI chatbots in completeness and accuracy". Contemporary Educational Technology 2024 16 no. 2 (2024): ep509. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/14564

Govender, Reginald Gerald "My AI students: Evaluating the proficiency of three AI chatbots in completeness and accuracy". Contemporary Educational Technology, vol. 16, no. 2, 2024, ep509. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/14564

Govender RG. My AI students: Evaluating the proficiency of three AI chatbots in completeness and accuracy. CONT ED TECHNOLOGY. 2024;16(2):ep509. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/14564