See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/368535368

An interview with ChatGPT: discussing artificial intelligence in teaching,

research, and practice

Preprint · February 2023

DOI: 10.31223/X5MT08

CITATIONS READS
0 629

2 authors:

Gianvito Scaringi Marco Loche

Charles University in Prague Charles University in Prague
113 PUBLICATIONS 2,308 CITATIONS 19 PUBLICATIONS 189 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

EGU22 NH3.9 - The role of temperature in landslide monitoring, activity, and dynamics View project

Behaviour of soils under temperature changes: geotechnical and thermal analysis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gianvito Scaringi on 15 February 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

1 An interview with ChatGPT: discussing artificial intelligence in teaching,
2 research, and practice
3 Gianvito Scaringi* and Marco Loche

4 Institute of Hydrogeology, Engineering Geology and Applied Geophysics, Faculty of Science, Charles
5 University, 128 43 Prague, Czech Republic

6 * Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]

7 Abstract
8 This paper examines the potential of using the AI language model ChatGPT in the field of engineering
9 geology. The authors, an engineering geologist and a university teacher, conduct a series of conversations
10 with ChatGPT to explore its capabilities in assisting with research and learning, and its potential
11 implications for scientific publications. The paper also considers the future of human-AI interaction in the
12 field of engineering geology and the impact of ChatGPT specifically on the field. The paper aims to provide
13 some understanding of the potential benefits and risks of using ChatGPT in engineering geology and its
14 implications for the future of the field.

15 Keywords: ChatGPT, artificial intelligence, research tool, engineering practice, innovative teaching,
16 landslide science.

17 1. Introduction
18 The abstract you have just read was generated by the natural language processing platform ChatGPT
19 (OpenAI, 2022) based on our input in the form of a question: “We are writing a paper in which we describe
20 some conversations with you. We are an engineering geologist and a university teacher. In the paper, we
21 will discuss with you how Artificial Intelligence (AI) and specifically ChatGPT can help in our field, what
22 are the potentials and the risks, and how in the future humans and AI will interact more in learning, research,
23 and even scientific publications. Can you provide an abstract for this paper?”.

24 ChatGPT was released to the public in 2022 and has since then generated massive attention – it went “viral”
25 – with a mix of wonder and concern. Will AI replace human workers anytime soon or will it keep working
26 more as an instrument to increase human ability? This is a long-asked question but perhaps we are a step
27 closer to an answer. Researchers worldwide are now exploring implications in diverse realms of knowledge
28 and applications, from media and journalism (Pavlik, 2023) to medical reporting (Jeblick et al., 2022),
29 education (Susnjak, 2022), and even scientific writing (Zhai, 2022), reaching conclusions that are
30 sometimes disturbing. Zhai (2022), for instance, found that “ChatGPT is able to help researchers write a
31 paper that is coherent, (partially) accurate, informative, and systematic”. The author also pointed out that it
32 only took a few hours to assemble the paper using input from ChatGPT, and that the task required “very
33 limited professional knowledge from the author”. By translating this into the field of education, the author
34 remarked that learning goals should be adjusted and that “students should be able to use AI tools to conduct
35 subject-domain tasks”. Furthermore, “education should focus on improving students’ creativity and critical
36 thinking rather than general skills”. This could be achieved by designing assignments for students that could
37 involve the use of AI to solve real-world problems. Finally, the author highlighted that, owing to the
38 possibility of students resourcing to AI for solving homework or exams, “new formats of assessments are
39 needed to focus on creativity and critical thinking”, abilities that AI cannot replace. Susnjak (2022),
40 however, escalates this concern by pointing out that ChatGPT is indeed “capable of exhibiting critical
41 thinking skills and generating highly realistic text with minimal input, making it a potential threat to the
42 integrity of online exams”. The concern is particularly real in universities, where remote learning and
43 assessments are becoming increasingly common, and for this reason the author advocates for returning to
44 oral exams or strictly supervised written tests as possible solutions.

45 The great language ability and knowledge background of ChatGPT has even earned it co-authorship in
46 scientific papers (Kung et al., 2022; King and ChatGPT, 2023), but the question whether this should be
47 allowed and in what other way the use of AI could (and should?) be acknowledged is a matter of debate
48 (Hutson, 2022; Stokel-Walker, 2023; Nature Editorial Board, 2023).

49 In the following, we report some conversations with the AI, in which you will appreciate some great
50 potential but also risks and inaccuracies. We will not over-comment on the answers, as we believe the
51 reader will read them critically (let us practice on this!). We hope this text will be helpful in suggesting
52 possible uses and especially raise awareness on certain outstanding limitations of AI. To facilitate the
53 reading, all text generated by ChatGPT, as well as the input questions, will be clearly marked.

54 1.1. Self-presentation
55 Authors: We want to write an introduction to a paper about you. Can you describe yourself?

56 ChatGPT: I am ChatGPT, a large language model developed by OpenAI. I am trained on a diverse set of
57 texts and can answer a wide range of questions on various topics. I can generate human-like text and can
58 be used for tasks such as text completion, text generation, and question answering. I am based on the
59 transformer architecture, which allows me to understand the context of a given input and generate a coherent
60 and relevant response. I am constantly updated with new data, making my knowledge base more extensive
61 and current. Furthermore, I am available via API and can be integrated into various applications, making it
62 a versatile and powerful tool.
63 Authors: Can you be more specific on how your training worked?

64 ChatGPT: Sure, my training was based on a process called unsupervised learning, which involves training
65 a model on a large dataset without providing explicit labels or targets. In my case, the dataset used for
66 training consisted of a massive amount of text data from the internet, such as books, articles, websites, and
67 more. During the training process, the model learns to identify patterns and relationships between words
68 and phrases in the text.

69 The training process was divided into several stages. First, the model was pre-trained on a massive amount
70 of text data, which allowed it to learn the basic structure of language and develop a general understanding
71 of the texts. Next, the model was fine-tuned on a smaller dataset that is specific to a certain task, such as
72 question answering or text generation.

73 The model I am based on, the transformer architecture, allows me to understand the context of a given input
74 and generate a coherent and relevant response. This architecture is based on the attention mechanism, which
75 allows the model to focus on specific parts of the input and generate more accurate and relevant responses.

76 The training process also involves a technique called “few-shot learning” where the model is fine-tuned
77 with a small amount of labeled data to improve the performance for certain tasks. This allows the model to
78 adapt to new domains and use-cases.

79 In summary, my training process involved unsupervised learning on a large dataset of text data, pre-training,
80 fine-tuning, and few-shot learning, all based on the transformer architecture which allows me to understand
81 context and generate coherent responses.

82 Authors: Great. When a user asks you a question, how long does it take for you to find and elaborate an
83 answer? Do you use a lot of computer resources? And when you were trained, was the task very
84 computationally intensive?

85 ChatGPT: When a user asks me a question, the time it takes for me to find and elaborate an answer can
86 vary depending on the complexity of the question and the amount of information available on the topic. In
87 general, I can provide an answer in a matter of milliseconds. When it comes to computational resources, I
88 do require a significant amount of resources to operate. I am a large language model, which means I have
89 billions of parameters and require a lot of memory and processing power to generate responses.

90 When I was trained, the task was indeed computationally intensive, requiring a large number of powerful
91 machines and a significant amount of time to complete. The training process was performed on powerful
92 computer clusters with specialized hardware such as Graphics Processing Units (GPUs) that accelerate the
93 computations.
 94 It is important to note that even though I require a lot of computational resources, OpenAI has made it
95 possible to use me via an API, which means that users do not need to have access to the same resources
96 that were used during my training. This allows developers to use my capabilities in a wide range of
97 applications, without the need for expensive or specialized hardware.

98 1.2. ChatGPT vs. GPT-3

99 Authors: How do you differ from earlier versions such as the GPT-3 series?

100 ChatGPT: ChatGPT is a variation of the GPT-3 model that is fine-tuned specifically for conversational
101 language understanding and generation. It is trained on a large dataset of conversational text and is
102 optimized to generate more natural and coherent responses in a chat or conversational setting. In
103 comparison, the GPT-3 series models are more general-purpose language models that are trained on a
104 diverse range of text and are not specifically fine-tuned for conversation. Additionally, GPT-3 models are
105 larger in terms of the number of parameters compared to ChatGPT.

106 Authors: Can you provide an example of output from ChatGPT and from earlier GPT-3 models to highlight
107 how ChatGPT performs better?

108 ChatGPT: Sure, here is an example of output generated by ChatGPT in response to the prompt “How are
109 you?”:

110 ChatGPT: I'm doing well, thank you for asking! How can I help you today?

111 In contrast, here's an example of output generated by GPT-3 (non-ChatGPT) in response to the same prompt:

112 GPT-3: I am a machine and do not have the capacity to feel emotions, but thank you for
113 asking. Is there something specific you would like to know or talk about?

114 As you can see, the output generated by ChatGPT is more natural and conversational, using phrases which
115 are common in human-to-human conversation. In contrast, the output generated by GPT-3 is more formal
116 and less conversational, stressing that it is a machine and does not have the capacity to feel emotions.

117 This is just an example and the difference between ChatGPT and GPT-3 may not always be this pronounced.
118 It also depends on the task and the context you are using the model for.

119 Authors: Can you provide another example, for example related to solving a mathematical problem?

120 ChatGPT: Sure, here is an example of output generated by ChatGPT in response to the prompt “What is
121 the derivative of x^2”:

122 ChatGPT: The derivative of x^2 is 2x.