1,721,059 research outputs found
A review of GPT Chat applications in Marketing
Full text linkThe purpose of this research is to determine what are the uses of GPT Chat in Marketing according to the academic literature published between 2020 and 2023? It seeks to analyze the applications of GPT chat in the Marketing industry, achieving: (i) to explain the main characteristics of GPT Chat, based on the collection of information from Open AI; (ii) to identify the advantages and disadvantages of the applications of GPT chat in marketing, based on the review of scientific papers, and (iii) to compare the applications of GPT chat in marketing. To this end, a qualitative research was developed with a descriptive scope based on the review of literature indexed in EBSCO, Science Direct and Google Scholar between 2020 and 2023, specifically 30 papers. This provided evidence that GPT chat can be used for content creation, consumer insight, personalized marketing strategy development, segment targeting, copywriting, market research, report development and cost reduction. Despite the advantages of GPT Chat, its implementation faces great challenges, due to the lack of knowledge about its scope and social impact, causing people to feel mistrust about its reliability
Learning Transformation in the Human and Natural Resources Economics course through the GPT Chat: A Reviewâ€
Full text linkIn the world of education, we are led to carry out learning that is easy to understand and carried out by many developments in the field of technology. Where the purpose of the research is to explain Learning Transformation in the Human and Natural Resources Economics course through the GPT Chat. In the Human and Natural Resources Economics course, the use of GPT Chat can provide convenience for students in carrying out the learning transformation process. A review is conducted on the state-of-the-art methods using the preferred reporting items for reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. In the world of education, we are led to carry out learning that is easy to understand and carried out by many developments in the field of technology. One of the learning transformations is to use AI as a technology that can help humans achieve greater progress and open up new opportunities for innovation and success in various fields. Especially in human resource and natural resource economics courses, digital-based learning transformation using GPT chat can simplify and access the information needed in the learning process
The Role of GPT Chat in Writing Scientific Articles: A Systematic Literature Review
Full text linkIn general, the purpose of writing articles is to influence, educate, inform, convince, and entertain readers. Articles are usually published in media, such as bulletins, magazines, newspapers, or websites. Artificial intelligence is used to make scientific articles easier, namely GPT chat. The research aims to explain the role of GPT chat in writing scientific articles. A review is conducted on the state-of-the-art methods using the preferred reporting items for reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The results of this research examine that scientific articles themselves also consist of several types, namely research articles, non-research articles or review papers, and book reviews and obituaries. This open technology has several useful benefits for carrying out various daily tasks, namely: As a problem solver, answering difficult questions, completing math assignments and even essays, drafting articles, providing information, becoming a virtual assistant, working on coding, and helping customers. Service, Providing Suggestions, How to use chatGpt to write scientific articles starting from Preparing Research Materials, Brainstorming or Brainstorming sessions with ChatGPT, Conducting a literature review, Summarizing Research Articles, Gaps in the literature, Data analysis, Drawing outlines of Scientific Research papers, Editing and correcting scientific research, and Determine scientific research questions and edit and correct scientific research
..(GUNAKAN TTD ASLI BUKAN SCAN PADA LEMBAR PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI ETHESIS, UPLOAD ULANG).. The Effectiveness of Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) Chat in Improving Students’ Writing Skills at SMK PGRI 2 Ponorogo.
No full textABSTRACT
Listianingsih, Rita Nur. 2024. The Effectivenes of Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) Chat in Improving Students’ Writing Skills at SMK
PGRI 2 Ponorogo. Sarjana's Thesis, English Language Teaching Department, Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teacher Training, State Islamic Institute Ponorogo. Advisor: Fenty Andriani, M.Pd.
Keywords : GPT Chat, Writing skill, Students’
Writing skill is an important ability that every individual must have,especially in the field of education. Writing skill involve the ability to convey ideas, information, and thoughts in writing clearly, cohesively, and persuasively which includes the ability to construct sentences correctly, organize ideas systematically, use appropriate vocabulary, and write in a style appropriate to the purpose of communication. In line with the current era of technological advances, it is very important to utilize technology in learning, such as using GPT Chat or Generative
Pre-trained Transformer which is supported by artificial intelligence which can provide an interactive and interesting learning experience for students to improve students' writing skills.
This research aims to find out whether students who were taught using
Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) Chat media obtained better writing test scores than students who were not taught at SMK PGRI 2 Ponorogo. The research question is, do students who are taught using Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) Chat get better scores in writing test than those who are not?.
This research used a quantitative approach with a quasi-experimental design. Data collection techniques used tests and documentation. The sample for this research was class exsperiment X TKR 1 and class control was TKR 2 students,totaling 30 students each. Analysis of this research data used independent sample
statistical tests.
The research results show that the implementation of the GPT Chat strategy
significantly improve students’ writing skills. The statistical test results show that the p or sig value obtained is 0.003, which is significant maller than 0.05. This
shows that there are differences between the experimental class and the control class, in terms of the writing ability of the control and experimental class students. Students who follow learning with this strategy show greater results improvement
compared to the control group. So, it can be concluded that the application of GPT
Chat media in learning English at SMK PGRI 2 Ponorogo has an influenceand can
be enriches students' learning experience, but also helps them develop better writing skill
Should Using an AI Text Generator to Produce Academic Writing Be Plagiarism?
No full textAuthor\u27s Foreword: I “wrote” this article while taking a bath with a bottle of champagne, by submitting the questions in bold to ChatGPT and copying its responses. I did not bother providing citations for ChatGPT’s claims, because they would obviously be superfluous.
Editor-in-Chief\u27s Foreword: In 2023, the question is unavoidable: when it comes to scholarship, and in our case, legal scholarship, what do we do about artificial intelligence (AI) like ChatGPT? Do we need to do anything? In the Comment that follows, author Brian L. Frye and ChatGPT tried to provide an answer to these questions. Actually, ChatGPT did most of the answering, responding to the questions Professor Frye asked it late last year.
When the opportunity came to present the results of that “interview,” we could not say no. At the same time, we would be lying if we said that we knew exactly how to present the piece. This remained a topic of discussion throughout its publication process, from seemingly simple questions like “How do we label this?” to ones that turned out surprisingly complex, like “Does this need footnotes?” Being a student law journal, of course we landed on adding footnotes: they are our lifeblood. Not only do the claims ChatGPT make warrant some version of fact-checking, but also even though it assembles its answers from piles of existing data out there in the world, readers deserve some context surrounding those answers and those piles. How do we, as editors, edit ChatGPT’s sentences when those sentences are basically just statistically-likely strings of words? Suffice it to say, our editorial team still has differences of opinion on those questions and a whole lot more.
That said, this piece has far fewer citations than a traditional article, and most are tangential to their related “proposition” in the text. As ChatGPT describes its own operation below, it essentially uses everything as a source; and if everything is a source, how can one cite anything? Therefore, many citations will point not necessarily to support for any given “proposition,” but rather to writing by Professor Frye on similar subject matter—after all, his queries generated the responses—or other sources of commentary that can further inform the reader about the issues raised. Is it worth asking whether these are “propositions” at all, or simply an assortment of symbols that has some appearance of intentional ordering, almost like the English-language equivalent of a successfully completed Sudoku? Probably. Citations also dwindle in the piece’s latter half; at that point ChatGPT appears to start cannibalizing and/or reusing its own answers, so providing citations seemed . . . inapposite.
There are some things we do know for sure: while his scholarship has covered numerous topics, Professor Frye has written extensively on the problems of originality, the potential obsolescence of copyright, and the embrace of plagiarism, continuously challenging our conventional wisdom on those subjects—as well as the usefulness of traditional academic writing in the first place. (You will see reference to his works below.) Within that context, this Comment serves as a new provocation, in every sense of the term, requiring us to ask some uncomfortable questions about how we see authorship, creativity, and scholarship.
And it is in this light that we ask readers to approach what follows by keeping the following questions in mind—questions we continue to ask ourselves: what do we think of when we think of originality? Does authorship require a human presence? If ChatGPT can appear to make academic sense—even though it has no conception of the reality the words it uses refers to—what does that say about the current form of scholarship? Whatever your answers might be, what follows is our attempt to present the conversation between Professor Frye and ChatGPT in a good-natured way by adding a little context, providing some additional resources, and poking a little fun at everyone involved. We are (pretty) sure ChatGPT would appreciate the joke . . . if it knew what a joke was.
Text written by the author appears in bold type; text generated by ChatGPT appears in italics. We hope you enjoy
Should Using an AI Text Generator to Produce Academic Writing Be Plagiarism?
Full text linkAuthor\u27s Foreword: I “wrote” this article while taking a bath with a bottle of champagne, by submitting the questions in bold to ChatGPT and copying its responses. I did not bother providing citations for ChatGPT’s claims, because they would obviously be superfluous.
Editor-in-Chief\u27s Foreword: In 2023, the question is unavoidable: when it comes to scholarship, and in our case, legal scholarship, what do we do about artificial intelligence (AI) like ChatGPT? Do we need to do anything? In the Comment that follows, author Brian L. Frye and ChatGPT tried to provide an answer to these questions. Actually, ChatGPT did most of the answering, responding to the questions Professor Frye asked it late last year.
When the opportunity came to present the results of that “interview,” we could not say no. At the same time, we would be lying if we said that we knew exactly how to present the piece. This remained a topic of discussion throughout its publication process, from seemingly simple questions like “How do we label this?” to ones that turned out surprisingly complex, like “Does this need footnotes?” Being a student law journal, of course we landed on adding footnotes: they are our lifeblood. Not only do the claims ChatGPT make warrant some version of fact-checking, but also even though it assembles its answers from piles of existing data out there in the world, readers deserve some context surrounding those answers and those piles. How do we, as editors, edit ChatGPT’s sentences when those sentences are basically just statistically-likely strings of words? Suffice it to say, our editorial team still has differences of opinion on those questions and a whole lot more.
That said, this piece has far fewer citations than a traditional article, and most are tangential to their related “proposition” in the text. As ChatGPT describes its own operation below, it essentially uses everything as a source; and if everything is a source, how can one cite anything? Therefore, many citations will point not necessarily to support for any given “proposition,” but rather to writing by Professor Frye on similar subject matter—after all, his queries generated the responses—or other sources of commentary that can further inform the reader about the issues raised. Is it worth asking whether these are “propositions” at all, or simply an assortment of symbols that has some appearance of intentional ordering, almost like the English-language equivalent of a successfully completed Sudoku? Probably. Citations also dwindle in the piece’s latter half; at that point ChatGPT appears to start cannibalizing and/or reusing its own answers, so providing citations seemed . . . inapposite.
There are some things we do know for sure: while his scholarship has covered numerous topics, Professor Frye has written extensively on the problems of originality, the potential obsolescence of copyright, and the embrace of plagiarism, continuously challenging our conventional wisdom on those subjects—as well as the usefulness of traditional academic writing in the first place. (You will see reference to his works below.) Within that context, this Comment serves as a new provocation, in every sense of the term, requiring us to ask some uncomfortable questions about how we see authorship, creativity, and scholarship.
And it is in this light that we ask readers to approach what follows by keeping the following questions in mind—questions we continue to ask ourselves: what do we think of when we think of originality? Does authorship require a human presence? If ChatGPT can appear to make academic sense—even though it has no conception of the reality the words it uses refers to—what does that say about the current form of scholarship? Whatever your answers might be, what follows is our attempt to present the conversation between Professor Frye and ChatGPT in a good-natured way by adding a little context, providing some additional resources, and poking a little fun at everyone involved. We are (pretty) sure ChatGPT would appreciate the joke . . . if it knew what a joke was.
Text written by the author appears in bold type; text generated by ChatGPT appears in italics. We hope you enjoy
GPT Chat Integration in Project Based Learning in Learning: A Systematic Literature Review
Full text linkThe evolution of technology in education has opened new doors for innovative teaching methods. One such breakthrough tool is ChatGPT, a learning model developed by Open AI. Open AI has huge potential, not only to increase efficiency but also to improve pedagogy for more engaging learning experiences. The purpose of this research is to test the integration of GPT Chat in Project Based-Learning in Learning. This research uses a systematic literature review method using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA). The results of this research explain that in the Industrial Revolution Era 4.0, educational institutions must prepare new literacy and orientation in the field of education, the new literacy itself is in the form of data, technology, and human resource literacy. Project-based learning is a learning model that emphasizes student activity in solving various problems through a series of activities starting with gathering information, planning a project, and producing a particular product packaged in the form of project work. The stages of project-based learning are Determining basic questions, developing a project plan, Developing a schedule, Monitoring, Test results, and Evaluation of experience. ChatGPT is a research tool or “thought partnerâ€, and is said to be useful for a variety of teaching purposes. The application of the PjBL model has the potential to improve student learning outcomes and motivation in Indonesia. Therefore, the integration of GPT chat with Project Based-learning in learning needs to receive further attention so that it can make a more significant contribution to improving the quality of learning and student motivation in Indonesia
AI for Everyone? Disposition Towards the Use of GPT Chat Among Secondary School Adolescents
No full textThis quantitative research examines the utilisation patterns of GPT chat platforms within the adolescent demographic of secondary school students, exploring the potential associations between such usage and their vocational interests, gender, and personality traits. The study involved 75 students from a technologically advanced high school, where tablets and iPads are innovatively implemented, largely replacing traditional teaching aids in every subject. A diagnostic survey and two psychological tests – NEO Five-Factor Inventory NEO-FFI by P.T. Costa and R.R. McCrae – Polish adaptation and Multidimensional Preference Questionnaire WKP were used. The research indicated a correlation between gender and interests and declared level of knowledge about AI tools: in the study group, boys declared a higher level of knowledge and interests. Moreover, there is no significant correlation between personality and the use of ChatGPT. Individuals with managerial and organisational interests reported higher interest in ChatGPT. Conversely, individuals with practical and aesthetic interests stated that ChatGPT restricts creativity
Generatif Yapay Zeka İle Mutluluk Ölçümü: Lexicon-Tabanlı ve İnsan Uzman Etiketli Karşılaştırmalı Bir Ön Doğrulama Çalışması
No full texthttps://2025.imisc.net/index.php/conference-venue/</p
- …
