Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
Artificial Intelligence and Public Health: Evaluating ChatGPT Responses to Vaccination Myths and Misconceptions
156
Zitationen
6
Autoren
2023
Jahr
Abstract
of K < 0.05). Overall, ChatGPT responses were easy to understand and 85.4% accurate although one of the questions was misinterpreted. Qualitatively, the GPT-4.0 responses were superior to the GPT-3.5 responses in terms of Correctness, Clarity, and Exhaustiveness (Δ = 5.6%, 17.9%, 9.3%, respectively). The study shows that, if appropriately questioned, AI tools can represent a useful aid in the health care field. However, when consulted by non-expert users, without the support of expert medical advice, these tools are not free from the risk of eliciting misleading responses. Moreover, given the existing social divide in information access, the improved accuracy of answers from the paid version raises further ethical issues.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI
2019 · 8.674 Zit.
Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead
2019 · 8.583 Zit.
High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence
2018 · 8.105 Zit.
BioBERT: a pre-trained biomedical language representation model for biomedical text mining
2019 · 6.862 Zit.
Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
2005 · 5.781 Zit.