Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

ChatGPT & Mechanical Engineering: Examining performance on the FE Mechanical Engineering and Undergraduate Exams

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

arxiv 2309.15866 v1 pith:5PV2AEFC submitted 2023-09-26 cs.CY cs.AI

classification cs.CYcs.AI
keywords chatgptengineeringmechanicalquestionscapabilitiesclassroomcorrectexam
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

The launch of ChatGPT at the end of 2022 generated large interest into possible applications of artificial intelligence in STEM education and among STEM professions. As a result many questions surrounding the capabilities of generative AI tools inside and outside of the classroom have been raised and are starting to be explored. This study examines the capabilities of ChatGPT within the discipline of mechanical engineering. It aims to examine use cases and pitfalls of such a technology in the classroom and professional settings. ChatGPT was presented with a set of questions from junior and senior level mechanical engineering exams provided at a large private university, as well as a set of practice questions for the Fundamentals of Engineering Exam (FE) in Mechanical Engineering. The responses of two ChatGPT models, one free to use and one paid subscription, were analyzed. The paper found that the subscription model (GPT-4) greatly outperformed the free version (GPT-3.5), achieving 76% correct vs 51% correct, but the limitation of text only input on both models makes neither likely to pass the FE exam. The results confirm findings in the literature with regards to types of errors and pitfalls made by ChatGPT. It was found that due to its inconsistency and a tendency to confidently produce incorrect answers the tool is best suited for users with expert knowledge.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Multimodal large language models and physics visual tasks: comparative analysis of performance and costs

    physics.ed-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Across four image-based physics concept inventories, tested AI models scored between 21% and 81.5% accuracy, and cheaper models often matched or beat far more expensive ones.

Pith tools