Search

With the introduction of ChatGPT, the public's perception of AI-generated content has begun to reshape. Artificial intelligence has significantly reduced the barrier to entry for non-professionals in creative endeavors, enhancing the efficiency of content creation. Recent advancements have seen significant improvements in the quality of symbolic music generation, which is enabled by the use of modern generative algorithms to extract patterns implicit in a piece of music based on rule constraints or a musical corpus. Nevertheless, existing literature reviews tend to present a conventional and conservative perspective on future development trajectories, with a notable absence of thorough benchmarking of generative models. This paper provides a survey and analysis of recent intelligent music generation techniques, outlining their respective characteristics and discussing existing methods for evaluation. Additionally, the paper compares the different characteristics of music generation techniques in the East and West as well as analysing the field's development prospects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper delves into the intricate relationship between Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the art ecosystem, emphasizing the need for a decolonizing approach in the face of AI's growing influence. It argues that the development of AI is not just a technological leap but also a significant cultural and societal moment, akin to the advent of moving images that Walter Benjamin famously analyzed. The paper examines how AI, particularly in its current oligarchical and corporate-driven form, perpetuates and magnifies the existing social inequalities, thereby necessitating a critical and radical rethinking of its role in society and the arts. At the heart of the discussion is the concept of AI as a broad term encompassing various forms of machine intelligence, from natural language processing to computer vision. The paper criticizes the dominant anthropocentric view of intelligence and creativity, proposing a more inclusive approach that considers the diverse forms of intelligence present in other species and potentially in AI itself. It underscores the role of AI in shaping the art ecosystem, not just in the creative process but also in gatekeeping and decision-making. The paper proposes a framework for decolonizing AI in the art ecosystem, focusing on four key tasks: recognizing access as a form of power, understanding and addressing biases inherent in AI, assessing the impact of AI on marginalized communities, and challenging dominant narratives and epistemologies to create space for alternative voices and perspectives. It emphasizes the need for artists and the art community to engage actively with AI, shaping its development towards more equitable and just outcomes. In conclusion, the paper calls for a radical reimagination of AI's role in society and the arts, advocating for a future where AI is not just about technological advancement but also about fostering a more inclusive, equitable, and creatively diverse world. It invites artists, thinkers, and innovators to join in this journey of reimagining and reshaping the future of AI and the art ecosystem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the role of Generative AI (GenAI) and Large Language Models (LLMs) in penetration testing exploring the benefits, challenges, and risks associated with cyber security applications. Through the use of generative artificial intelligence, penetration testing becomes more creative, test environments are customised, and continuous learning and adaptation is achieved. We examined how GenAI (ChatGPT 3.5) helps penetration testers with options and suggestions during the five stages of penetration testing. The effectiveness of the GenAI tool was tested using a publicly available vulnerable machine from VulnHub. It was amazing how quickly they responded at each stage and provided better pentesting report. In this article, we discuss potential risks, unintended consequences, and uncontrolled AI development associated with pentesting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the transformative potential of Large Language Models Artificial Intelligence (LLM AI) in educational contexts, particularly focusing on the innovative practice of prompt engineering. Prompt engineering, characterized by three essential components of content knowledge, critical thinking, and iterative design, emerges as a key mechanism to access the transformative capabilities of LLM AI in the learning process. This paper charts the evolving trajectory of LLM AI as a tool poised to reshape educational practices and assumptions. In particular, this paper breaks down the potential of prompt engineering practices to enhance learning by fostering personalized, engaging, and equitable educational experiences. The paper underscores how the natural language capabilities of LLM AI tools can help students and educators transition from passive recipients to active co-creators of their learning experiences. Critical thinking skills, particularly information literacy, media literacy, and digital citizenship, are identified as crucial for using LLM AI tools effectively and responsibly. Looking forward, the paper advocates for continued research to validate the benefits of prompt engineering practices across diverse learning contexts while simultaneously promoting potential defects, biases, and ethical concerns related to LLM AI use in education. It calls upon practitioners to explore and train educational stakeholders in best practices around prompt engineering for LLM AI, fostering progress towards a more engaging and equitable educational future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The usage of Chatbots as a kind of Artificial Intelligence in medicine is getting to increase in recent years. UpToDate® is another well-known search tool established on evidence-based knowledge and is used daily by doctors worldwide. In this study, we aimed to investigate the usefulness and reliability of ChatGPT compared to UpToDate in Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery (ORL–HNS). Materials and methods: ChatGPT-3.5 and UpToDate were interrogated for the management of 25 common clinical case scenarios (13 males/12 females) recruited from literature considering the daily observation at the Department of Otorhinolaryngology of Ege University Faculty of Medicine. Scientific references for the management were requested for each clinical case. The accuracy of the references in the ChatGPT answers was assessed on a 0–2 scale and the usefulness of the ChatGPT and UpToDate answers was assessed with 1–3 scores by reviewers. UpToDate and ChatGPT 3.5 responses were compared. Results: ChatGPT did not give references in some questions in contrast to UpToDate. Information on the ChatGPT was limited to 2021. UpToDate supported the paper with subheadings, tables, figures, and algorithms. The mean accuracy score of references in ChatGPT answers was 0.25–weak/unrelated. The median (Q1–Q3) was 1.00 (1.25–2.00) for ChatGPT and 2.63 (2.75–3.00) for UpToDate, the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.001). UpToDate was observed more useful and reliable than ChatGPT. Conclusions: ChatGPT has the potential to support the physicians to find out the information but our results suggest that ChatGPT needs to be improved to increase the usefulness and reliability of medical evidence-based knowledge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Chatbot generative pre-trained transformer (ChatGPT) is a new artificial intelligence-powered language model of chatbot able to help otolaryngologists in practice and research. We investigated the accuracy of ChatGPT-3.5 and -4 in the referencing of manuscripts published in otolaryngology. Methods: ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 were interrogated for providing references of the top-30 most cited papers in otolaryngology in the past 40 years including clinical guidelines and key studies that changed the practice. The responses were regenerated three times to assess the accuracy and stability of ChatGPT. ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 were compared for accuracy of reference and potential mistakes. Results: The accuracy of ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4.0 ranged from 47% to 60%, and 73% to 87%, respectively (p < 0.005). ChatGPT-3.5 provided 19 inaccurate references and invented 2 references throughout the regenerated questions. ChatGPT-4.0 provided 13 inaccurate references, while it proposed only one invented reference. The stability of responses throughout regenerated answers was mild (k = 0.238) and moderate (k = 0.408) for ChatGPT-3.5 and 4.0, respectively. Conclusions: ChatGPT-4.0 reported higher accuracy than the free-access version (3.5). False references were detected in both 3.5 and 4.0 versions. Practitioners need to be careful regarding the use of ChatGPT in the reach of some key reference when writing a report. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]