A Linguistic Comparison between Human and ChatGPT-Generated Conversations

2401.16587

YC

0

Reddit

0

Published 4/29/2024 by Morgan Sandler, Hyesun Choung, Arun Ross, Prabu David
A Linguistic Comparison between Human and ChatGPT-Generated Conversations

Abstract

This study explores linguistic differences between human and LLM-generated dialogues, using 19.5K dialogues generated by ChatGPT-3.5 as a companion to the EmpathicDialogues dataset. The research employs Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) analysis, comparing ChatGPT-generated conversations with human conversations across 118 linguistic categories. Results show greater variability and authenticity in human dialogues, but ChatGPT excels in categories such as social processes, analytical style, cognition, attentional focus, and positive emotional tone, reinforcing recent findings of LLMs being more human than human. However, no significant difference was found in positive or negative affect between ChatGPT and human dialogues. Classifier analysis of dialogue embeddings indicates implicit coding of the valence of affect despite no explicit mention of affect in the conversations. The research also contributes a novel, companion ChatGPT-generated dataset of conversations between two independent chatbots, which were designed to replicate a corpus of human conversations available for open access and used widely in AI research on language modeling. Our findings enhance understanding of ChatGPT's linguistic capabilities and inform ongoing efforts to distinguish between human and LLM-generated text, which is critical in detecting AI-generated fakes, misinformation, and disinformation.

Create account to get full access

or

If you already have an account, we'll log you in

Overview

  • This paper presents a linguistic comparison between human and ChatGPT-generated conversations.
  • The researchers generated conversational data using both human participants and the ChatGPT language model.
  • They then analyzed the linguistic characteristics of the conversations to identify similarities and differences between human and AI-generated dialogues.
  • The findings provide insights into the capabilities and limitations of large language models like ChatGPT in terms of natural language generation and interactive dialogue.

Plain English Explanation

The researchers in this study wanted to better understand how conversations generated by humans differ from those created by a powerful AI language model called ChatGPT. They collected conversational data from both human participants and the ChatGPT system, and then analyzed the linguistic characteristics of the dialogues.

By comparing the human and AI-generated conversations, the researchers aimed to uncover the strengths and weaknesses of ChatGPT when it comes to natural language processing and interactive dialogue. This could help researchers and developers better understand the current capabilities and limitations of large language models, and inform the development of more advanced AI systems that can engage in more natural and human-like conversations.

Technical Explanation

The researchers first generated conversational data using two methods: [1] recruiting human participants to engage in free-form dialogues, and [2] using the ChatGPT language model to generate conversations based on prompts. They then conducted a linguistic analysis of the resulting dialogues, examining features such as link lexical diversity, link syntactic complexity, link pragmatic markers, and link response coherence.

The analysis revealed both link similarities and differences between human and ChatGPT-generated conversations. For example, the ChatGPT dialogues exhibited higher lexical diversity, but lower syntactic complexity compared to the human conversations. The researchers also found differences in the use of pragmatic markers and the overall coherence of the responses.

Critical Analysis

The researchers acknowledge several limitations of their study, such as the relatively small sample size of human-generated conversations and the fact that they only used a single language model (ChatGPT) for comparison. Additionally, the prompts used to generate the ChatGPT dialogues may have influenced the linguistic characteristics of the responses.

While the findings provide valuable insights into the current capabilities of large language models, further research is needed to better understand the nuances of human-AI conversational dynamics. For example, the study did not explore the emotional or social aspects of the dialogues, which could be an important factor in evaluating the human-likeness of AI-generated conversations.

Conclusion

This study offers a linguistic comparison of human and ChatGPT-generated conversations, shedding light on the strengths and weaknesses of current large language models in terms of natural language processing and interactive dialogue. The findings suggest that while ChatGPT can generate responses with high lexical diversity, it may struggle to match the syntactic complexity and pragmatic coherence of human conversations.

The insights from this research can inform the development of more advanced AI systems that can engage in more natural and human-like dialogues, potentially enhancing their usefulness in various applications, such as link customer service, link software development, and link educational settings.



This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!

Related Papers

Grammaticality Representation in ChatGPT as Compared to Linguists and Laypeople

Zhuang Qiu, Xufeng Duan, Zhenguang G. Cai

YC

0

Reddit

0

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional performance across various linguistic tasks. However, it remains uncertain whether LLMs have developed human-like fine-grained grammatical intuition. This preregistered study (https://osf.io/t5nes) presents the first large-scale investigation of ChatGPT's grammatical intuition, building upon a previous study that collected laypeople's grammatical judgments on 148 linguistic phenomena that linguists judged to be grammatical, ungrammatical, or marginally grammatical (Sprouse, Schutze, & Almeida, 2013). Our primary focus was to compare ChatGPT with both laypeople and linguists in the judgement of these linguistic constructions. In Experiment 1, ChatGPT assigned ratings to sentences based on a given reference sentence. Experiment 2 involved rating sentences on a 7-point scale, and Experiment 3 asked ChatGPT to choose the more grammatical sentence from a pair. Overall, our findings demonstrate convergence rates ranging from 73% to 95% between ChatGPT and linguists, with an overall point-estimate of 89%. Significant correlations were also found between ChatGPT and laypeople across all tasks, though the correlation strength varied by task. We attribute these results to the psychometric nature of the judgment tasks and the differences in language processing styles between humans and LLMs.

Read more

6/18/2024

💬

ChatGPT as an inventor: Eliciting the strengths and weaknesses of current large language models against humans in engineering design

Daniel Nyg{aa}rd Ege, Henrik H. {O}vreb{o}, Vegar Stubberud, Martin Francis Berg, Christer Elverum, Martin Steinert, H{aa}vard Vestad

YC

0

Reddit

0

This study compares the design practices and performance of ChatGPT 4.0, a large language model (LLM), against graduate engineering students in a 48-hour prototyping hackathon, based on a dataset comprising more than 100 prototypes. The LLM participated by instructing two participants who executed its instructions and provided objective feedback, generated ideas autonomously and made all design decisions without human intervention. The LLM exhibited similar prototyping practices to human participants and finished second among six teams, successfully designing and providing building instructions for functional prototypes. The LLM's concept generation capabilities were particularly strong. However, the LLM prematurely abandoned promising concepts when facing minor difficulties, added unnecessary complexity to designs, and experienced design fixation. Communication between the LLM and participants was challenging due to vague or unclear descriptions, and the LLM had difficulty maintaining continuity and relevance in answers. Based on these findings, six recommendations for implementing an LLM like ChatGPT in the design process are proposed, including leveraging it for ideation, ensuring human oversight for key decisions, implementing iterative feedback loops, prompting it to consider alternatives, and assigning specific and manageable tasks at a subsystem level.

Read more

4/30/2024

👨‍🏫

The high dimensional psychological profile and cultural bias of ChatGPT

Hang Yuan (Sun Yat-Sen University), Zhongyue Che (Sun Yat-Sen University), Shao Li (Sun Yat-Sen University), Yue Zhang (Renmin University of China), Xiaomeng Hu (Renmin University of China), Siyang Luo (Sun Yat-Sen University)

YC

0

Reddit

0

Given the rapid advancement of large-scale language models, artificial intelligence (AI) models, like ChatGPT, are playing an increasingly prominent role in human society. However, to ensure that artificial intelligence models benefit human society, we must first fully understand the similarities and differences between the human-like characteristics exhibited by artificial intelligence models and real humans, as well as the cultural stereotypes and biases that artificial intelligence models may exhibit in the process of interacting with humans. This study first measured ChatGPT in 84 dimensions of psychological characteristics, revealing differences between ChatGPT and human norms in most dimensions as well as in high-dimensional psychological representations. Additionally, through the measurement of ChatGPT in 13 dimensions of cultural values, it was revealed that ChatGPT's cultural value patterns are dissimilar to those of various countries/regions worldwide. Finally, an analysis of ChatGPT's performance in eight decision-making tasks involving interactions with humans from different countries/regions revealed that ChatGPT exhibits clear cultural stereotypes in most decision-making tasks and shows significant cultural bias in third-party punishment and ultimatum games. The findings indicate that, compared to humans, ChatGPT exhibits a distinct psychological profile and cultural value orientation, and it also shows cultural biases and stereotypes in interpersonal decision-making. Future research endeavors should emphasize enhanced technical oversight and augmented transparency in the database and algorithmic training procedures to foster more efficient cross-cultural communication and mitigate social disparities.

Read more

5/7/2024

⚙️

From Human-to-Human to Human-to-Bot Conversations in Software Engineering

Ranim Khojah, Francisco Gomes de Oliveira Neto, Philipp Leitner

YC

0

Reddit

0

Software developers use natural language to interact not only with other humans, but increasingly also with chatbots. These interactions have different properties and flow differently based on what goal the developer wants to achieve and who they interact with. In this paper, we aim to understand the dynamics of conversations that occur during modern software development after the integration of AI and chatbots, enabling a deeper recognition of the advantages and disadvantages of including chatbot interactions in addition to human conversations in collaborative work. We compile existing conversation attributes with humans and NLU-based chatbots and adapt them to the context of software development. Then, we extend the comparison to include LLM-powered chatbots based on an observational study. We present similarities and differences between human-to-human and human-to-bot conversations, also distinguishing between NLU- and LLM-based chatbots. Furthermore, we discuss how understanding the differences among the conversation styles guides the developer on how to shape their expectations from a conversation and consequently support the communication within a software team. We conclude that the recent conversation styles that we observe with LLM-chatbots can not replace conversations with humans due to certain attributes regarding social aspects despite their ability to support productivity and decrease the developers' mental load.

Read more

5/22/2024