Lars, thank you for that amusing weekend diversion!
If they really were submitted as a student’s responses to assignment questions I would have to fail them.
They appear to be the result of a quick Google search and skimming a few Wikipedia pages. They are repetitive, superficial paraphrases of a few basic sources, displaying a lack of tuition and learning, of originality and critical reflection.
They also include glaring inaccuracies in the suggested ‘most cited papers’. For example, I cannot find anything by Donald Schön with the title given; I have never published a paper with the title “Design as a process of exploration”; Paul Hekkert has not written a paper on “Designing emotions” (although his colleague Pieter Desmet has). Almost every one of the citations are wrong or inaccurate or citing books not papers.
I expect we might all disagree with the list of ‘leading universities’ in design research, which seems to be phrases cut-and-pasted from the universities’ own websites.
What the responses do indicate is a certain facility for glibly borrowing from and paraphrasing others. But at least, in the end, the chatbot is honest on its own limitations. It looks as though it still has a lot to learn! Personally, on this evidence, I wouldn't trust its answers to anything.
Nigel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|