REVIEW 1 cited by
Can ChatGPT Pass a Theory of Computing Course?
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) have had considerable difficulty when prompted with mathematical questions, especially those within theory of computing (ToC) courses. In this paper, we detail two experiments regarding our own ToC course and the ChatGPT LLM. For the first, we evaluated ChatGPT's ability to pass our own ToC course's exams. For the second, we created a database of sample ToC questions and responses to accommodate other ToC offerings' choices for topics and structure. We scored each of ChatGPT's outputs on these questions. Overall, we determined that ChatGPT can pass our ToC course, and is adequate at understanding common formal definitions and answering "simple"-style questions, e.g., true/false and multiple choice. However, ChatGPT often makes nonsensical claims in open-ended responses, such as proofs.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Seeing the Forest and the Trees: Solving Visual Graph and Tree Based Data Structure Problems using Large Multimodal Models
On a newly generated benchmark, multimodal models solve up to 87.6% of visual tree problems and 56.2% of visual graph problems, undercutting the idea that diagrams make exam questions AI-proof.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.