Multidimensional Impacts of Generative AI and an In-Depth Analysis of LLMs with Their Expanding Horizons in Technology and Society
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Generative AI and large language models (LLMs) have transformed technology and society, as this paper details. Generative AI advanced AI greatly. Because they can read and write, LLMs, a form of Generative AI, have altered how humans and robots communicate. This study focuses on how these technologies influence schooling, healthcare, finance, and morals. Recent studies and case studies will help us understand how LLM is applied in many sectors. Our key concerns with these activities are efficiency, efficacy, and morality. The technique also polls and interviews professionals to learn about LLM usage and issues. LLM is quicker and more precise in translating languages, creating content, and analyzing data. Sadly, prejudice, privacy, and abuse issues persisted. LLMs are versatile enough to be utilized in odd fields like individualized learning and mental health treatment, according to the research. LLMs and creative AI can advance technology and society. Despite their benefits, they pose moral and practical issues that must be addressed. This study seeks a compromise between the two LLM methods. A more moral, research-focused use might make them more beneficial and less hazardous.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".