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

[Karl Karzelek]

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?

[jlm]

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.

[Kristin]

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.

[Karl Karzelek]

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. 

[Karl Karzelek]

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. 

[miketisdell]

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:

 

 

 

[jlm]

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:

 

 

 

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.

[cim]

Biblical AI would be a project you could do on your own. It's most unwelcome in the real world here.

[Erhard]

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.

[GYDOF1729]

@miketisdell

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

[Nathan Parker]

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).

[Pastor Jonathan]

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.

[Tom Major]

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?

[docdave]

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)

[Tom Major]

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.