[Paper Review] Netizens, Academicians, and Information Professionals' Opinions About AI With Special Reference To ChatGPT

A Subaveerapandiyan, A Vinoth+1 more|arXiv (Cornell University)|Feb 1, 2023

Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education15 citations

TL;DR

The study analyzes perceptions of ChatGPT-3 among netizens, academicians, and information professionals via social media content analysis and a librarian information science survey, finding it useful yet not fully reliable and broadly gaining acceptance.

ABSTRACT

This study aims to understand the perceptions and opinions of academicians towards ChatGPT-3 by collecting and analyzing social media comments, and a survey was conducted with library and information science professionals. The research uses a content analysis method and finds that while ChatGPT-3 can be a valuable tool for research and writing, it is not 100% accurate and should be cross-checked. The study also finds that while some academicians may not accept ChatGPT-3, most are starting to accept it. The study is beneficial for academicians, content developers, and librarians.

Motivation & Objective

• Understand perceptions of ChatGPT-3 among academicians, netizens, and information professionals.
• Identify perceived benefits and limitations of ChatGPT-3 for research and writing.
• Assess acceptance levels of ChatGPT-3 within academic and library communities.

Proposed method

• Content analysis of social media comments to capture public perceptions of ChatGPT-3.
• Survey of library and information science professionals to gather structured attitudes and experiences.
• Synthesis of qualitative and quantitative insights on usefulness and accuracy of ChatGPT-3.

Experimental results

Research questions

• RQ1 What are the perceived benefits of ChatGPT-3 for research and writing according to netizens and professionals?
• RQ2 What are the limitations and concerns (e.g., accuracy) associated with ChatGPT-3 in academic contexts?
• RQ3 To what extent do academicians and information professionals accept or reject ChatGPT-3?
• RQ4 How do opinions vary between netizens, academicians, and information professionals?

Key findings

• ChatGPT-3 is viewed as a potentially valuable tool for research and writing.
• ChatGPT-3 is not 100% accurate and results should be cross-checked.
• Some academicians are hesitant to accept ChatGPT-3, while acceptance is increasing among many.