Comparing emotions in ChatGPT answers and human answers to the coding questions on Stack Overflow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Recent advances in generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Natural Language Processing (NLP) have led to the development of Large Language Models (LLMs) and AI-powered chatbots like ChatGPT, which have numerous practical applications. Notably, these models assist programmers with coding queries, debugging, solution suggestions, and providing guidance on software development tasks. Despite known issues with the accuracy of ChatGPT's responses, its comprehensive and articulate language continues to attract frequent use. This indicates potential for ChatGPT to support educators and serve as a virtual tutor for students. Methods: To explore this potential, we conducted a comprehensive analysis comparing the emotional content in responses from ChatGPT and human answers to 2000 questions sourced from Stack Overflow (SO). The emotional aspects of the answers were examined to understand how the emotional tone of AI responses compares to that of human responses. Results: Our analysis revealed that ChatGPT's answers are generally more positive compared to human responses. In contrast, human answers often exhibit emotions such as anger and disgust. Significant differences were observed in emotional expressions between ChatGPT and human responses, particularly in the emotions of anger, disgust, and joy. Human responses displayed a broader emotional spectrum compared to ChatGPT, suggesting greater emotional variability among humans. Discussion: The findings highlight a distinct emotional divergence between ChatGPT and human responses, with ChatGPT exhibiting a more uniformly positive tone and humans displaying a wider range of emotions. This variance underscores the need for further research into the role of emotional content in AI and human interactions, particularly in educational contexts where emotional nuances can impact learning and communication.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".