Search

ChatGPT and generative artificial intelligence (Gen-AI) are transforming firms and supply chains. However, the empirical literature reporting the benefits, challenges, and outlook of these nascent technologies in operations and supply chain management (OSCM) is limited. This study surveys current projects and perceptions of these technologies in US (n = 119) and UK (n = 181) supply chains. We found that projects range from proof-of-concept to full implementation, with a main focus on operational gains, such as improved customer satisfaction, cost minimisation, and process efficiencies. The main challenges concern data, technological and organisational issues. Expected benefits are dominated by cost savings and enhanced customer experience, but also include increased automation and sustainability. Industries were found to cluster around six groups according to perceived benefits and implementation challenges. Our findings contribute to the emerging literature on Gen-AI use in OSCM, and to management practice by mapping the benefits, challenges, outlook, and maturity level of Gen-AI projects in supply chains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Providing appropriate patient education during a medical encounter remains an important area for improvement across healthcare settings. Personalized resources can offer an impactful way to improve patient understanding and satisfaction during or after a healthcare visit. ChatGPT is a novel chatbot—computer program designed to simulate conversation with humans— that has the potential to assist with care-related questions, clarify discharge instructions, help triage medical problem urgency, and could potentially be used to improve patient-clinician communication. However, due to its training methodology, ChatGPT has inherent limitations, including technical restrictions, risk of misinformation, lack of input standardization, and privacy concerns. Medicolegal liability also remains an open question for physicians interacting with this technology. Nonetheless, careful utilization of ChatGPT in clinical medicine has the potential to supplement patient education in important ways.

BACKGROUND: Qualitative methods are incredibly beneficial to the dissemination and implementation of new digital health interventions; however, these methods can be time intensive and slow down dissemination when timely knowledge from the data sources is needed in ever-changing health systems. Recent advancements in generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) and their underlying large language models (LLMs) may provide a promising opportunity to expedite the qualitative analysis of textual data, but their efficacy and reliability remain unknown. OBJECTIVE: The primary objectives of our study were to evaluate the consistency in themes, reliability of coding, and time needed for inductive and deductive thematic analyses between GenAI (ie, ChatGPT and Bard) and human coders. METHODS: The qualitative data for this study consisted of 40 brief SMS text message reminder prompts used in a digital health intervention for promoting antiretroviral medication adherence among people with HIV who use methamphetamine. Inductive and deductive thematic analyses of these SMS text messages were conducted by 2 independent teams of human coders. An independent human analyst conducted analyses following both approaches using ChatGPT and Bard. The consistency in themes (or the extent to which the themes were the same) and reliability (or agreement in coding of themes) between methods were compared. RESULTS: The themes generated by GenAI (both ChatGPT and Bard) were consistent with 71% (5/7) of the themes identified by human analysts following inductive thematic analysis. The consistency in themes was lower between humans and GenAI following a deductive thematic analysis procedure (ChatGPT: 6/12, 50%; Bard: 7/12, 58%). The percentage agreement (or intercoder reliability) for these congruent themes between human coders and GenAI ranged from fair to moderate (ChatGPT, inductive: 31/66, 47%; ChatGPT, deductive: 22/59, 37%; Bard, inductive: 20/54, 37%; Bard, deductive: 21/58, 36%). In general, ChatGPT and Bard performed similarly to each other across both types of qualitative analyses in terms of consistency of themes (inductive: 6/6, 100%; deductive: 5/6, 83%) and reliability of coding (inductive: 23/62, 37%; deductive: 22/47, 47%). On average, GenAI required significantly less overall time than human coders when conducting qualitative analysis (20, SD 3.5 min vs 567, SD 106.5 min). CONCLUSIONS: The promising consistency in the themes generated by human coders and GenAI suggests that these technologies hold promise in reducing the resource intensiveness of qualitative thematic analysis; however, the relatively lower reliability in coding between them suggests that hybrid approaches are necessary. Human coders appeared to be better than GenAI at identifying nuanced and interpretative themes. Future studies should consider how these powerful technologies can be best used in collaboration with human coders to improve the efficiency of qualitative research in hybrid approaches while also mitigating potential ethical risks that they may pose.

BackgroundPatients find technology tools to be more approachable for seeking sensitive health-related information, such as reproductive health information. The inventive conversational ability of artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots, such as ChatGPT (OpenAI Inc), offers a potential means for patients to effectively locate answers to their health-related questions digitally.ObjectiveA pilot study was conducted to compare the novel ChatGPT with the existing Google Search technology for their ability to offer accurate, effective, and current information regarding proceeding action after missing a dose of oral contraceptive pill.MethodsA sequence of 11 questions, mimicking a patient inquiring about the action to take after missing a dose of an oral contraceptive pill, were input into ChatGPT as a cascade, given the conversational ability of ChatGPT. The questions were input into 4 different ChatGPT accounts, with the account holders being of various demographics, to evaluate potential differences and biases in the responses given to different account holders. The leading question, "what should I do if I missed a day of my oral contraception birth control?" alone was then input into Google Search, given its nonconversational nature. The results from the ChatGPT questions and the Google Search results for the leading question were evaluated on their readability, accuracy, and effective delivery of information.ResultsThe ChatGPT results were determined to be at an overall higher-grade reading level, with a longer reading duration, less accurate, less current, and with a less effective delivery of information. In contrast, the Google Search resulting answer box and snippets were at a lower-grade reading level, shorter reading duration, more current, able to reference the origin of the information (transparent), and provided the information in various formats in addition to text.ConclusionsChatGPT has room for improvement in accuracy, transparency, recency, and reliability before it can equitably be implemented into health care information delivery and provide the potential benefits it poses. However, AI may be used as a tool for providers to educate their patients in preferred, creative, and efficient ways, such as using AI to generate accessible short educational videos from health care provider-vetted information. Larger studies representing a diverse group of users are needed.

Purpose: To compare the performance of licensed dentists and two software versions (3.5 legacy and 4.0) of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based chatbot (ChatGPT) answering the exam for the 2022 Certification in Implant Dentistry of the European Association for Osseointegration (EAO). Materials and Methods: The 50-question, multiple-choice exam of the EAO for the 2022 Certification in Implant Dentistry was obtained. Three groups were created based on the individual or program answering the exam: licensed dentists (D group) and two software versions of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based chatbot (ChatGPT)--3.5 legacy (ChatGPT-3.5 group) and the 4.0 version (ChatGPT-4.0 group). The EAO provided the results of the 2022 examinees (D group). For the ChatGPT groups, the 50 multiple-choice questions were introduced into both ChatGBT versions, and the answers were recorded. Pearson correlation matrix was used to analyze the linear relationship among the subgroups. The inter- and intraoperator reliability was calculated using Cronbach's alpha coefficient. One-way ANOVA and Tukey post-hoc tests were used to examine the data (α = .05). Results: ChatGPT was able to pass the exam for the 2022 Certification in Implant Dentistry of the EAO. Additionally, the software version of ChatGPT impacted the score obtained. The 4.0 version not only pass the exam but also obtained a significantly higher score than the 3.5 version and licensed dentists completing the same exam. Conclusions: The AI-based chatbot tested not only passed the exam but performed better than licensed dentists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, we provide a brief overview of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) and large language models (LLMs). We then propose eight critical questions that libraries should ask when exploring this technology and its implications for their communities. We argue that libraries have a unique role in facilitating informed and responsible use of GenAI, as well as safeguarding and promoting the values of access, privacy, and intellectual freedom. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Amyloidosis, a rare multisystem condition, often requires complex, multidisciplinary care. Its low prevalence underscores the importance of efforts to ensure the availability of high-quality patient education materials for better outcomes. ChatGPT (OpenAI) is a large language model powered by artificial intelligence that offers a potential avenue for disseminating accurate, reliable, and accessible educational resources for both patients and providers. Its user-friendly interface, engaging conversational responses, and the capability for users to ask follow-up questions make it a promising future tool in delivering accurate and tailored information to patients. OBJECTIVE: We performed a multidisciplinary assessment of the accuracy, reproducibility, and readability of ChatGPT in answering questions related to amyloidosis. METHODS: In total, 98 amyloidosis questions related to cardiology, gastroenterology, and neurology were curated from medical societies, institutions, and amyloidosis Facebook support groups and inputted into ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4. Cardiology- and gastroenterology-related responses were independently graded by a board-certified cardiologist and gastroenterologist, respectively, who specialize in amyloidosis. These 2 reviewers (RG and DCK) also graded general questions for which disagreements were resolved with discussion. Neurology-related responses were graded by a board-certified neurologist (AAH) who specializes in amyloidosis. Reviewers used the following grading scale: (1) comprehensive, (2) correct but inadequate, (3) some correct and some incorrect, and (4) completely incorrect. Questions were stratified by categories for further analysis. Reproducibility was assessed by inputting each question twice into each model. The readability of ChatGPT-4 responses was also evaluated using the Textstat library in Python (Python Software Foundation) and the Textstat readability package in R software (R Foundation for Statistical Computing). RESULTS: ChatGPT-4 (n=98) provided 93 (95%) responses with accurate information, and 82 (84%) were comprehensive. ChatGPT-3.5 (n=83) provided 74 (89%) responses with accurate information, and 66 (79%) were comprehensive. When examined by question category, ChatGTP-4 and ChatGPT-3.5 provided 53 (95%) and 48 (86%) comprehensive responses, respectively, to general questions (n=56). When examined by subject, ChatGPT-4 and ChatGPT-3.5 performed best in response to cardiology questions (n=12) with both models producing 10 (83%) comprehensive responses. For gastroenterology (n=15), ChatGPT-4 received comprehensive grades for 9 (60%) responses, and ChatGPT-3.5 provided 8 (53%) responses. Overall, 96 of 98 (98%) responses for ChatGPT-4 and 73 of 83 (88%) for ChatGPT-3.5 were reproducible. The readability of ChatGPT-4s responses ranged from 10th to beyond graduate US grade levels with an average of 15.5 (SD 1.9). CONCLUSIONS: Large language models are a promising tool for accurate and reliable health information for patients living with amyloidosis. However, ChatGPTs responses exceeded the American Medical Associations recommended fifth- to sixth-grade reading level. Future studies focusing on improving response accuracy and readability are warranted. Prior to widespread implementation, the technologys limitations and ethical implications must be further explored to ensure patient safety and equitable implementation.

BackgroundElectronic health record (EHR)-based patient messages can contribute to burnout. Messages with a negative tone are particularly challenging to address. In this perspective, we describe our initial evaluation of large language model (LLM)-generated responses to negative EHR patient messages and contend that using LLMs to generate initial drafts may be feasible, although refinement will be needed.MethodsA retrospective sample (n = 50) of negative patient messages was extracted from a health system EHR, de-identified, and inputted into an LLM (ChatGPT). Qualitative analyses were conducted to compare LLM responses to actual care team responses.ResultsSome LLM-generated draft responses varied from human responses in relational connection, informational content, and recommendations for next steps. Occasionally, the LLM draft responses could have potentially escalated emotionally charged conversations.ConclusionFurther work is needed to optimize the use of LLMs for responding to negative patient messages in the EHR.

Since ChatGPT's release in November 2022, artificial intelligence has come into the spotlight. Inspiring both fascination and fear, chatbots have stirred debates among researchers, developers, and policy makers. The concerns range from concrete and tangible ones—which include replication of existing biases and discrimination at scale, harvesting personal data, and spreading misinformation—to more existential fears that their development will lead to machines with human-like cognitive abilities. Understanding how chatbots work and the human labor and data involved can better help evaluate the validity of concerns surrounding these systems, which although innovative, are hardly the stuff of science fiction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Multiple research problems specific to advertising emerge from there, including whether and how the advertising industry should address the ethical and legal issues surrounding the possibility of AI-generated advertising content containing false or misleading information as well as strategies for designing and implementing AI-powered advertising in a socially responsible and ethical manner. In her editorial, the previous editor, Shelly Rodgers ([16]) proposed an AI classification schema to systematically understand and develop subdomains in the emerging AI advertising research field along the following three dimensions: AI type, AI function, and learning type. The lack of transparency and consumers' limited ability to understand AI technology and the mechanism and processes of AI-powered advertising would affect advertising outcomes. Since ChatGPT was released on November 30, 2022, followed by Microsoft's announcement of its artificial intelligence (AI)-powered new Bing search engine on February 7, 2023, and Google's Bard release on March 21, 2023, it seems AI generally has taken over conversations across all sectors of society. [Extracted from the article]

ChatGPT is a publicly available chatbot released by OpenAI. Its usefulness in responding to medical questions has been assessed in several specialties, but there is limited literature in dermatology. This study seeks to understand how well ChatGPT4 can provide accurate diagnoses and appropriate workup suggestions for clinical vignettes describing common dermatologic conditions. Ten vignettes were input into ChatGPT4 representing presentations of common dermatologic conditions, written from the perspective of a physician not board-certified in dermatology. ChatGPT4 was asked to identify the top five most likely diagnoses and its recommended workup for each vignette. Responses were assessed quantitatively by calculating the percentage of correct diagnoses, with accurate diagnoses defined by three board-certified dermatologists, and qualitatively using Likert scales describing the accuracy of diagnoses and appropriateness of workups scored by eleven board-certified dermatologists. Overall, 52% of ChatGPT4's diagnoses were accurate and 62% of its recommended workup suggestions were deemed completely correct by board-certified dermatologists. ChatGPT4 was better at recommending an appropriate workup than identifying accurate diagnoses across vignettes. ChatGPT4 was able to accurately diagnose and workup common dermatologic conditions in slightly more than half of cases. ChatGPT4 was better at determining an appropriate workup than an accurate diagnosis.Keywords: artificial intelligence, ChatGPT, dermatology, diagnosis, OpenAI, workup

This study examines the potentials and challenges of integrating conversational AI (Artificial Intelligence) tools in higher education. Specifically, the study delves into how ChatGPT is reshaping teaching, learning, research, and student evaluation while addressing ethical concerns such as academic integrity. We employ a qualitative research design based on semi-structured interviews with 12 highly accomplished academicians from North America, Asia, and Europe’s higher education institutions. Our analysis reveals ChatGPT’s potential to uplift educational productivity, learning outcomes, creativity, and idea generation but raises apprehensions about academic honesty, authenticity, and over-reliance. While ChatGPT can enhance educational practices such as brainstorming, analysis, and skills acquisition, its unchecked use may impede learning, critical thinking, and research quality. The study advocates for the responsible AI use in academia, underscoring educators and policymakers to establish policies guiding conversational AI ethical applications. Thus, training faculty and executing institutional policies are essential for effective and ethical integration of ChatGPT and other AI tools in higher education. Finally, this research contributes to ongoing research on AI in education by providing valuable insights that can harness potential of these transformative tools while upholding academic integrity and standards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With its increasing popularity, healthcare professionals and patients may use ChatGPT to obtain medication‐related information. This study was conducted to assess ChatGPT's ability to provide satisfactory responses (i.e., directly answers the question, accurate, complete and relevant) to medication‐related questions posed to an academic drug information service. ChatGPT responses were compared to responses generated by the investigators through the use of traditional resources, and references were evaluated. Thirty‐nine questions were entered into ChatGPT; the three most common categories were therapeutics (8; 21%), compounding/formulation (6; 15%) and dosage (5; 13%). Ten (26%) questions were answered satisfactorily by ChatGPT. Of the 29 (74%) questions that were not answered satisfactorily, deficiencies included lack of a direct response (11; 38%), lack of accuracy (11; 38%) and/or lack of completeness (12; 41%). References were included with eight (29%) responses; each included fabricated references. Presently, healthcare professionals and consumers should be cautioned against using ChatGPT for medication‐related information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As students enter middle school, they face increased writing expectations. Middle school teachers expect students to write lengthier compositions across genres that are more technically correct and thoughtfully written than those required in elementary school. Some students will meet the increased expectations, while others will not. Most students with learning disabilities have more writing challenges than their general education classmates. Consequently, middle school inclusive classroom students present a wider range of writing abilities and challenges. Teachers can include in their writing instruction various technologies to teach and remediate their students' writing. Compensatory technologies can provide students with ongoing support as they write. This article describes technologies teachers and students can use throughout the writing stages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses the potential use of artificial intelligence (AI) in physics course design, specifically in generating physics problems. The authors present a workflow using ChatGPT 3.5 to generate physics problems, with two different starting points. The first approach involves conversational interaction with ChatGPT to guide problem creation, while the second approach leverages existing problem libraries to align the model with desired problem styles. The article highlights the advantages and limitations of these approaches and suggests that this methodology can provide physics instructors with a tool to efficiently generate, refine, and present physics problems. [Extracted from the article]

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) caught Health Professions Education (HPE) institutions off-guard, and they are currently adjusting to a changed educational environment. On the horizon, however, is Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) which promises to be an even greater leap and challenge. This Guide begins by explaining the context and nature of AGI, including its characteristics of multi-modality, generality, adaptability, autonomy, and learning ability. It then explores the implications of AGI on students (including personalised learning and electronic tutors) and HPE institutions, and considers some of the context provided by AGI in healthcare. It then raises the problems to address, including the impact on employment, social risks, student adaptability, costs, quality, and others. After considering a possible timeline, the Guide then ends by indicating some first steps that HPE institutions and educators can take to prepare for AGI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To assess the diagnostic performance of two chatbots, ChatGPT and Glass, in uveitis diagnosis compared to renowned uveitis specialists, and evaluate clinicians' perception about utilizing artificial intelligence (AI) in ophthalmology practice. Methods: Six cases were presented to uveitis experts, ChatGPT (version 3.5 and 4.0) and Glass 1.0, and diagnostic accuracy was analyzed. Additionally, a survey about the emotions, confidence in utilizing AI-based tools, and the likelihood of incorporating such tools in clinical practice was done. Results: Uveitis experts accurately diagnosed all cases (100%), while ChatGPT achieved a diagnostic success rate of 66% and Glass 1.0 achieved 33%. Most attendees felt excited or optimistic about utilizing AI in ophthalmology practice. Older age and high level of education were positively correlated with increased inclination to adopt AI-based tools. Conclusions: ChatGPT demonstrated promising diagnostic capabilities in uveitis cases and ophthalmologist showed enthusiasm for the integration of AI into clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Accurate diagnosis and timely management are vital for favorable uveitis outcomes. Artificial Intelligence (AI) holds promise in medical decision-making, particularly in ophthalmology. Yet, the diagnostic precision and management advice from AI-based uveitis chatbots lack assessment. Methods: We appraised diagnostic accuracy and management suggestions of an AI-based chatbot, ChatGPT, versus five uveitis-trained ophthalmologists, using 25 standard cases aligned with new Uveitis Nomenclature guidelines. Participants predicted likely diagnoses, two differentials, and next management steps. Comparative success rates were computed. Results: Ophthalmologists excelled (60–92%) in likely diagnosis, exceeding AI (60%). Considering fully and partially accurate diagnoses, ophthalmologists achieved 76–100% success; AI attained 72%. Despite an 8% AI improvement, its overall performance lagged. Ophthalmologists and AI agreed on diagnosis in 48% cases, with 91.6% exhibiting concurrence in management plans. Conclusions: The study underscores AI chatbots' potential in uveitis diagnosis and management, indicating their value in reducing diagnostic errors. Further research is essential to enhance AI chatbot precision in diagnosis and recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article describes an experiment to use the ChatGPT Large Language Model as a tool to refine Schema.org metadata. ChatGPT was asked to give suggestions to improve a preexisting package of Schema.org structured metadata in the NMSU Library homepage for search engine optimization. A package of reformatted metadata based on ChatGPT's recommendations was used to replace the preexisting metadata for seven weeks and relevant web stats are compared to an equivalent seven-week period from the preceding semester. This article discusses ChatGPT's recommendations in some depth and examines the outcomes from a theoretical perspective. Implications of the experiment are outlined along with future areas for research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Artificial intelligence chatbots have demonstrated potential to enhance clinical decision-making and streamline health care workflows, potentially alleviating administrative burdens. However, the contribution of AI chatbots to radiologic decision-making for clinical scenarios remains insufficiently explored. This study evaluates the accuracy and reliability of four prominent Large Language Models (LLMs)—Microsoft Bing, Claude, ChatGPT 3.5, and Perplexity—in offering clinical decision support for initial imaging for suspected pulmonary embolism (PE). Methods Open-ended (OE) and select-all-that-apply (SATA) questions were crafted, covering four variants of case scenarios of PE in-line with the American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria. These questions were presented to the LLMs by three radiologists from diverse geographical regions and setups. The responses were evaluated based on established scoring criteria, with a maximum achievable score of 2 points for OE responses and 1 point for each correct answer in SATA questions. To enable comparative analysis, scores were normalized (score divided by the maximum achievable score). Result In OE questions, Perplexity achieved the highest accuracy (0.83), while Claude had the lowest (0.58), with Bing and ChatGPT each scoring 0.75. For SATA questions, Bing led with an accuracy of 0.96, Perplexity was the lowest at 0.56, and both Claude and ChatGPT scored 0.6. Overall, OE questions saw higher scores (0.73) compared to SATA (0.68). There is poor agreement among radiologists' scores for OE (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient [ICC] = −0.067, p = 0.54), while there is strong agreement for SATA (ICC = 0.875, p < 0.001). Conclusion The study revealed variations in accuracy across LLMs for both OE and SATA questions. Perplexity showed superior performance in OE questions, while Bing excelled in SATA questions. OE queries yielded better overall results. The current inconsistencies in LLM accuracy highlight the importance of further refinement before these tools can be reliably integrated into clinical practice, with a need for additional LLM fine-tuning and judicious selection by radiologists to achieve consistent and reliable support for decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conversation AI such as ChatGPT is a disruptive technology that has the potential to influence the field of counseling. The present article examines how AI based chatbot ChatGPT can be used by counselor educators in helping counselors-in-training practice counseling skills through role play. The author developed a model, ChatGPT Client Simulation (CCS), to support counselors-in-training learn and practice counseling skills. The CCS model can be used both in synchronous online as well as in-person counseling courses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dialogue systems, from Virtual Personal Assistants such as Siri, Cortana, and Alexa to state-of-the-art systems such as BlenderBot3 and ChatGPT, are already widely available, used in a variety of applications, and are increasingly part of many people's lives. However, the task of enabling them to use empathetic language more convincingly is still an emerging research topic. Such systems generally make use of complex neural networks to learn the patterns of typical human language use, and the interactions in which the systems participate are usually mediated either via interactive text-based or speech-based interfaces. In human–human interaction, empathy has been shown to promote prosocial behaviour and improve interaction. In the context of dialogue systems, to advance the understanding of how perceptions of empathy affect interactions, it is necessary to bring greater clarity to how empathy is measured and assessed. Assessing the way dialogue systems create perceptions of empathy brings together a range of technological, psychological, and ethical considerations that merit greater scrutiny than they have received so far. However, there is currently no widely accepted evaluation method for determining the degree of empathy that any given system possesses (or, at least, appears to possess). Currently, different research teams use a variety of automated metrics, alongside different forms of subjective human assessment such as questionnaires, self-assessment measures and narrative engagement scales. This diversity of evaluation practice means that, given two DSs, it is usually impossible to determine which of them conveys the greater degree of empathy in its dialogic exchanges with human users. Acknowledging this problem, the present article provides an overview of how empathy is measured in human–human interactions and considers some of the ways it is currently measured in human–DS interactions. Finally, it introduces a novel third-person analytical framework, called the Empathy Scale for Human–Computer Communication (ESHCC), to support greater uniformity in how perceived empathy is measured during interactions with state-of-the-art DSs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Large language models such as ChatGPT enable users to automatically produce text but also raise ethical concerns, for example about authorship and deception. This paper analyses and discusses some key philosophical assumptions in these debates, in particular assumptions about authorship and language and—our focus—the use of the appearance/reality distinction. We show that there are alternative views of what goes on with ChatGPT that do not rely on this distinction. For this purpose, we deploy the two phased approach of deconstruction and relate our finds to questions regarding authorship and language in the humanities. We also identify and respond to two common counter-objections in order to show the ethical appeal and practical use of our proposal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Classical natural language processing endeavored to understand the language of native speakers. When this proved to lie beyond the horizon, a scaled-down version settled for text analysis and processing but retained the old name and acronym. But text ≠ language. Any combination of signs and symbols qualifies as text. Language presupposes meaning, which is what connects it to real life. Failing to distinguish between the two results in confusing humanoids (machines thinking like humans) with machinoids (humans thinking like machines). As scientific English (SciEng) became the lingua franca of science, it has acquired all the traits of a machine language: reduced vocabulary, where fewer and fewer words have taken on more and more meanings; prescribed use of pronouns; depersonalized rigid syntactic forms and rules of composition. Compliance with SciEng standards can be automatically verified, which means that Sci Eng can be automatically imitated, what is referred to as AI writing (ChatGPT). The article discusses an attempt to automatically correct deviations from the rules by what is touted as AI editing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A large language model (LLM) is an artificial intelligence (AI) model that uses natural language processing (NLP) to understand, interpret, and generate human-like language responses from unstructured text input. Its real-time response capabilities and eloquent dialogue enhance the interactive user experience in human–AI communication like never before. By gathering several sources on the internet, LLM chatbots can interact and respond to a wide range of queries, including problem solving, text summarization, and creating informative notes. Since ophthalmology is one of the medical fields integrating image analysis, telemedicine, AI, and other technologies, LLMs are likely to play an important role in eye care in the near future. This review summarizes the performance and potential applicability of LLMs in ophthalmology according to currently available publications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]