ChatGPT v Bard v Bing v Claude 2 v Aria v human-expert. How good are AI chatbots at scientific writing?

Abstract

Historical emphasis on writing mastery has shifted with advances in generative AI, especially in scientific writing. This study analysed six AI chatbots for scholarly writing in humanities and archaeology. Using methods that assessed factual correctness and scientific contribution, ChatGPT-4 showed the highest quantitative accuracy, closely followed by ChatGPT-3.5, Bing, and Bard. However, Claude 2 and Aria scored considerably lower. Qualitatively, all AIs exhibited proficiency in merging existing knowledge, but none produced original scientific content. Inter-estingly, our findings suggest ChatGPT-4 might represent a plateau in large language model size. This research emphasizes the unique, intricate nature of human research, suggesting that AI's emulation of human originality in scientific writing is challenging. As of 2023, while AI has transformed content generation, it struggles with original contributions in humanities. This may change as AI chatbots continue to evolve into LLM-powered software.

This is Preprint with Graphical abstract and Highlights. Please cite the peer-reviewed open access publication at https://doi.org/10.3390/fi15100336

References in corpus (4)

• ChatGPT and a New Academic Reality: Artificial Intelligence-Written Research Papers and the Ethics of the Large Language Models in Scholarly Publishing
• ChatGPT: Jack of all trades, master of none
• Gender bias and stereotypes in Large Language Models
• Current and Near-Term AI as a Potential Existential Risk Factor

Cited by in corpus (2)

• GenAI Detection Tools, Adversarial Techniques and Implications for Inclusivity in Higher Education
• Enhancing Abstractive Summarization of Scientific Papers Using Structure Information