Jump to content

Wild idea: Replace the research tab with an research AI bot


Karl Karzelek

Recommended Posts

I stumbled about this post here in the forums:

 

 

This pushed me to write about some ideas that are floating in my head for a few days now. I was hesitant to write about it at first. But the more I think about it the more I am convinced there might be something big waiting here. 

 

William Cross is describing that he is unhappy with the current state of the research tab. His suggestions was a more dynamic approach e.g. with natural language processing.

 

I would even go further and go bold: Replace the research tab with an research assistant bot powered by AI.

 

This might sound crazy, but I don't think it is.

 

I have been playing around with the OpenAI Project GPT and the chat bot chatGPT. It offers a lot of potential for new approaches to doing research. It is not there yet but there is a lot going on in that space.

 

I have written more about that here: http://www.kapeka.eu/ai-and-the-future-of-research-and-learning/

 

I cite a paragraph from that article:

 

Quote

AI can open up completely different ways of research. I thought about this in the context of Bible study software. This could indeed be a completely new approach in digital dictionary usage. I have a collection of academic Dictionaries in my Accordance Collection. If I want to get a broad picture about a topic like „second temple“ I have to put in search requests spanning all of those books, hoping I will find all the information I need.
I then have to go through all of the results and gather all the relevant information book by book.

A completely different approach would be to include something like chatGPT directly into Accordance or Logos as a form of research assistant. I then wouldn’t buy all the different dictionaries, but access to the AI Database as subscription. This Database is vetted by the provider to include reliable information. Then I would ask the bot questions about topics and would follow up on the results presented to me to dig deeper where necessary. If I need to cite articles or books for an academic paper the Bot would point me to recommended books or articles that e.g. were used to create the content of the database.
And because it’s not just a simple search query but a real AI Bot, I could have real interaction with the AI, developing ideas through the chat and checking those ideas against the available database. That could help you to bulletproof your ideas before you go public with them.

 

Christoph Heilig published a Twitter Thread about a „conversation“ with ChatGPT on the narrative structure of Romans and Galatians with some fascinating results: https://twitter.com/ChristophHeilig/status/1602385923525820418

 

As I said: This is nothing that will happen short term. But this could be a really important feature surely long-term, maybe even midterm. 

 

What do you think?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two basic problems with using ChatGPT to do research: (1) the things it says are not necessarily true, and (2) it doesn’t cite sources. I would imagine the second problem is easier to fix than the first, because the GPT method could learn associations between statements and citations from a suitable corpus. But you’d still have to check whether what it said actually corresponded to the source cited.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/13/2022 at 2:18 AM, Karl Karzelek said:

 

I would even go further and go bold: Replace the research tab with an research assistant bot powered by AI.

 

 

I think what concerns me the most personally is this statement above, of "replacing" what works for some of us, with AI (which I despise). I am not against to the idea of it being added as an OPTION, but I am very against "replacing" what I use every day.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jlm said:

There are two basic problems with using ChatGPT to do research: (1) the things it says are not necessarily true, and (2) it doesn’t cite sources. I would imagine the second problem is easier to fix than the first, because the GPT method could learn associations between statements and citations from a suitable corpus. But you’d still have to check whether what it said actually corresponded to the source cited.


I am not saying „use GPT“, although that is currently the advanced example for that. I wrote about using database verified by the publisher as the foundation for an AI Bot. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Kristin said:

 

I think what concerns me the most personally is this statement above, of "replacing" what works for some of us, with AI (which I despise). I am not against to the idea of it being added as an OPTION, but I am very against "replacing" what I use every day.


Ok, point taken. Replace your is maybe to strong. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note: An AI option for research would be a great feature if AI research allowed user feedback to train the tool it would be very valuable. And using AI to filter results would require no real changes to the current research interface. Consider, for example, having a "relevant" button associated with every returned result that would allow you to establish which results were relevant and which were not. Also a "return omitted results" button would be helpful both in training and research especially if "relevant" results were found among the omitted results; the "return omitted results would return the same results as a non-AI search."

 

One Interface change that I would love to see is one that would allow the "+" to add additional search criteria, like can be done with other searches. For example, consider how the search in text tools or the MT-LXX tool works (the latter would be exactly the kind of thing I would like to see in research:

image.thumb.png.76e303c28ccd0254c6186fb7192f53ef.png 

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 12/19/2022 at 6:13 PM, miketisdell said:

Note: An AI option for research would be a great feature if AI research allowed user feedback to train the tool it would be very valuable. And using AI to filter results would require no real changes to the current research interface. Consider, for example, having a "relevant" button associated with every returned result that would allow you to establish which results were relevant and which were not. Also a "return omitted results" button would be helpful both in training and research especially if "relevant" results were found among the omitted results; the "return omitted results would return the same results as a non-AI search."

 

One Interface change that I would love to see is one that would allow the "+" to add additional search criteria, like can be done with other searches. For example, consider how the search in text tools or the MT-LXX tool works (the latter would be exactly the kind of thing I would like to see in research:

image.thumb.png.76e303c28ccd0254c6186fb7192f53ef.png 

 

 

Yes, we've asked for this in the past. One issue with implementing it is that field names are not standardized in Accordance. There's a lot of commonality, but also some differences. Some tools have Greek, but more have have Greek Content. Most have English Content, but some have Content. Furthermore, Content is not necessarily English: it's Spanish in the Navarra Bible notes, and it might be Korean in a Tool made from a User Tool. So to make this work well would require someone at Accordance to survey existing Tools and standardize names or at least establish equivalences. Some fields, like Transliteration, would never work well because there are multiple transliteration systems in use.

 

Also, this interface with an extra line per field would make it more complicated to add full support for Research on non-Desktop platforms and to create search URLs for Research.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AI has somewhat of a place in software such as photography. Sometimes it works really good, other times not so much. For Bible software though it is another matter. Do we really want what someone has programmed AI to do to hide, filter or accentuate our searches? I would think that would be quite a slippery slope to go down.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@miketisdell

Absolutely love your picture and thoughts.  This is excellent!!  Would love to see this type of interface implemented immediately!!!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before I’d see an AI-powered research tool, first I’d like to see Accordance add some additional searching features to Research (being able to easily search multiple fields and one field NEAR another field would be powerful).

 

An AI-powered natural language search capability could be useful, although I wouldn’t want it to replace Research, but be another search option (maybe name it “Scholar” or “AI Research Assistant”. 

 

It would also need to be in beta for a long-time (even public beta) and offer the ability to send feedback to tweak it, as it’d likely start off a bit rocky (even Siri and other AI-powered systems were pretty rough at launch). 

 

If it ever became truly superior to Research, then and only then consider it a “replacement”, but that’d probably be a long time down the road. I’d rather see both run in parallel for a long time so we have both the “tried and true” system and the “new flashier beta” system to go back and forth between. Apple has made that mistake one too many times with killing off older systems before the new replacements were ready (Apple Maps, QuickTime X, Final Cut Pro X, iMovie ’08).

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I don't use AI at all. I see too many pitfalls and on anything I buy it is the first thing disabled.

 

At most make it an option. But not the only way and make it a side load or allow us to disable it.

 

Nothing irks me more with MS when I have to use it than disabling AI and find it is still running in the background.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would also like to see ChatGPT or something like it become an additional option to the existing tools.

 

I don't see much of an issue incorporating it somehow. I think the key will be when it gives a response to a prompt, does it also tell you the various sources that it used within Accordance so you can go and verify the accuracy?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Tom Major said:

I would also like to see ChatGPT or something like it become an additional option to the existing tools.

 

I don't see much of an issue incorporating it somehow. I think the key will be when it gives a response to a prompt, does it also tell you the various sources that it used within Accordance so you can go and verify the accuracy?

 

Some/many/most? profs and institutions might require that students use platforms other than Accordance if it included ChatGPT. From an ethics perspective, it is not ready for prime time.

 

 Penn students, faculty weigh in on concerns about ChatGPT use in education | The Daily Pennsylvanian (thedp.com)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, docdave said:

 

Some/many/most? profs and institutions might require that students use platforms other than Accordance if it included ChatGPT. From an ethics perspective, it is not ready for prime time.

 

 Penn students, faculty weigh in on concerns about ChatGPT use in education | The Daily Pennsylvanian (thedp.com)

 

I understand, and I actually just emailed a faculty member friend I know to alert them of ChatGPT. However, I think regardless of whether Accordance includes it or not, it's going to be used in higher-ed by students. I put a prompt into ChatGPT as follows, and it gave me a decent response: "Explain the meaning of each of the greek words in John 1:1 and how they function grammatically in the sentence"... 

 

If it can be used for Bible study outside of Accordance already, then it will be. So I think Accordance should incorporate it. Besides, I'm no longer in college myself, and I use Accordance.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

I use Accordance almost everyday.  I use ChatGPT alongside Accordance and as I reflect on my ChatGPT use, I'm using it more and more to glean background and contextual information. It helps fill in (and quickly so) gaps in my knowledge. Perhaps Google, Wikipedia, etc, might accomplish the same thing, but ChatGPT is certainly faster. As more and more software start including various AI tech, I wonder if software that don't do so will become obsolete.

 

Earlier today, for example, I was studying the international roadways around Mt Carmel and using, in part, satellite maps within Accordance to do so.  I asked ChatGPT for the top elevation point of Mt. Carmel.  It said, "approximately 485 meters (1,591 feet) above sea level."  I followed up and asked what the US Geological Survey ad the National Geodetic Survey consider the minimum elevation of a mountain. ChatGPT said "609.6 meters (2,000 feet).  I then asked if this was the same or different for what is considered a mountain in the UK.  ChatGPT said that it's the same.  This excursus all took well less than a minute and then I was back on track with my task.

 

Should Accordance update its software with ChatGPT ore something similar, I'd almost certainly use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've discussed AI in other posts with other suggestions. Something to be wary off is how the AI engines are constantly tweaked and mathematically weighted towards certain biases. What works well one day doesn't the next. I have had great success with AI as a brainstorming and research assistance and writing code, but it cannot be trusted period. Per @Nathan Parker comments, I'd see it as an additional capability. v14 Stability first though please :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're collecting feedback on AI, but we have nothing definitive to announce at the moment. Continue to send us feedback as to how you'd potentially use it in Accordance.

 

We certainly have other priorities at the moment. :-) It's worth a brainstorm though.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I would SO love to be able to point ChatGPT at my Accordance library, as its base of knowledge, and then ask it questions.

That... would... be... awesome.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The PDF Expert app I use just added an AI Chat feature that allows you to ask it questions based on the information in the document for quick research.  How much better it would be to have my Accordance Library be able to do this! 

Scripture, Prayer, and Announcements 1-7-24.png

Edited by William Cross
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please don’t. This kind of stuff goes back to the purposes for which things are made. A good reading of Neil Postman’s amusing ourselves to death would be in order here. I’d encourage us to use the internet for the original purpose of sharing research. Accordance has enough going against it right now to go down the road of trendy and trite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generally I oppose changes which throw away hours of time spent knowing how to use Accordance (like the disaster in the Highlighting function since Acc 12).  Generally I oppose changing Accordance so that we who have suffered learning how to use it for so many hours now find that it don’t work that way no mow.  Highlighting is an example. In Acc 12 the highlighting worked so well, but since then it has been a pain in the something. I so wish I could go back to the old system. So my recommendation is that if there is a new hotshot change to be enacted, that change should be only an option for those who want it.  Preferences should allow you to keep it the way it was.  Accordance is a complicated tool; if you ever once master it, that mastery should not be destroyed by a compulsion to change things. And if it ain't broke, don't fix it.  And when new modules come out, please keep them compatible with older editions of Accordance.  I found that after I downloaded 13, then 12 would no longer work right in the same computer.  Surely that does not have to be.

Edited by Enoch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

There is an argument to be made to fix what’s broken before adding new features, but no software company does that, they all have bugs that are never resolved. Not that it’s an excuse, just a harsh reality of doing business and Accordance is not a charity.

 

I can see a need for tiered options, simple for casual or low distraction users and the works with AI for advanced, adventurous and users with lots of resources purchased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see the benefits of having the current Research system and an AI-based research system.

 

I like the current Research system, and there's only a couple of additions to it that would make me "happy" to thoroughly use the current system.

 

Although having something AI-based as an option that could draw deeper connections from my library would be nice as well.

 

Another reason we'd need to keep both is the AI-powered one would probably need to be "online", and we'd need a basic Research that can work 100% "offline" for customers with intermittent Internet connections.

 

I've been playing with "offline AI" personally, but it takes a pretty powerful machine for it to spit out results fast, and even then, it's still not as thorough as fully online-based AI systems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Dr. Nathan Parker said:

I like the current Research system, and there's only a couple of additions to it that would make me "happy" to thoroughly use the current system.

 

I would just like to mention again that I truly despise AI "research." It is well known by now that AI is biased and censors information. Sometimes purposefully, and sometimes accidentally, but it is nonetheless not "research" per se, as far as how I define it.

 

58 minutes ago, cweber said:

I can see a need for tiered options, simple for casual or low distraction users and the works with AI for advanced, adventurous and users with lots of resources purchased.

 

I can agree to this in that I don't mind an AI version becoming available if people want it, as long as it can be COMPLETELY DISABLED in settings (or better yet, customers who want it can buy the AI feature, and those who hate AI can just not buy the feature.

 

However, I don't see AI as "advanced" research, but personally, AI "research" reminds me of a high school kid reading CliffsNotes instead of the actual book. CliffsNotes can be a great tool if it is 7am and you just remembered that there will be a quiz after lunch about the book you forgot to read, but it is not the same as reading the book.

 

58 minutes ago, cweber said:

There is an argument to be made to fix what’s broken before adding new features,

 

Amen to that.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...