Can ChatGPT engage effectively with emotionally charged or intricate subjects, offering insightful answers?
Human studies are always relative, so if this is the case, then of course ChatGPT when engaging in emotionally charged interactions may produce different responses each time, which may give an indication that the answers are incoherent
Although the American Psychological Association has recognized him for accepting citations from it, one of the disadvantages of relying on them is that: it may give a different answer each time.
This link may help you: https://apastyle.apa.org/blog/how-to-cite-chatgpt?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=apa-style&utm_content=blog-how-to-cite-chatgpt
First and foremost, it is imperative to acknowledge that ChatGPT is an instance of natural language processing, based on machine learning algorithms, specifically the GPT-3.5 model.
The capacity of ChatGPT to address emotional or intricate matters resides in its ability to analyze linguistic and contextual patterns present in the data with which it has been trained. However, it is essential to underscore that, while it can generate responses implying a superficial comprehension of emotional complexities, it lacks a true and experiential understanding of human emotions.
The handling of emotional topics entails not only the identification of key words and contexts, but also a profound and empathetic interpretation of human emotions. Although ChatGPT can simulate this process, its absence of intrinsic emotional awareness relegates it to simulation rather than authentic understanding.
In the realm of human interaction and psychology, the capacity to comprehend and respond to emotions is intricately rooted in human experience and empathy. Emotions are inherent to the human condition and are shaped by biological, psychological, and socio-cultural factors. ChatGPT, despite its potential to generate informed responses, lacks the ability to experience or feel emotions as a human does.
Comprehension and emotional empathy remain distinctly human attributes that lie beyond the current reach of artificial intelligence.
There's a very valuable discussion of a closely related topic– the human writer's creativity as compared with the machine's– by Julian Gough in the current issue, vol.134.2 summer 2023, of The Author, (which is the professional journal of the UK's writer's 'trade union', the Society of Authors).
The outputs are different and (unless subsequently worked over in a creative process by a human being), machine output is, until very recently at any rate, clearly inferior in literary quality– quite apart from the possibility of factual error in extended accounts of specific topics.
This is partly because of the way emotions are handled by the machine, bereft of any unconscious influence on their form, and of the way in which emotions manifest in the real world of experienced action.
The articles on the AI threat to copyright by Rachel Coldicutt, and some very useful guidelines by Nicola Solomon on the protection of one's moral rights as author when agreeing contracts with book publishers, are also very worthwhile.
This is particularly relevant given the way in which everything we publish is liable to be 'scraped' by the AI engines, to be added, without our knowledge or permission, to the databases from which the machines generate their stochastically-determined content.
Colleagues based in the UK might consider joining the Society; see www.societyofauthors.org. Professional legal advice is free to members, as well as detailed comment on the contractual terms relating to one's articles and books. I never sign a book contract without running it past them, and they have assisted me, and protected my authorial rights, on several occasions.
Any scientific engine or tool can provide useful information to researchers, students, or anyone who has a desire for scientific research, but it is certain that each tool has negatives and positives, and it may be useful, and it may give information only, and the researcher must sort it out and know what is right and useful for him or not, so we have to adopt these tools as a means of research, not as a result
Chat GPT sources data from the internet- mindlessly. If you’ve had even marginal experience on the internet, you know the limitations that ChatGPT will run into. Leaving aside that it is inhumane- and therefore unable to emotionally relate to content- it can only ever approximate the humanity of an internet user…
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Asia
- India