News Verifiers Showdown: A Comparative Performance Evaluation of ChatGPT 3.5, ChatGPT 4.0, Bing AI, and Bard in News Fact-Checking
This provides a comparative benchmark for AI fact-checking tools, though it shows they still lag behind human performance in handling nuanced news contexts.
This study evaluated four large language models (ChatGPT 3.5, ChatGPT 4.0, Bing AI, and Bard) on 100 fact-checked news items, finding moderate proficiency with an average accuracy score of 65.25 out of 100, with GPT-4.0 performing best at 71.
This study aimed to evaluate the proficiency of prominent Large Language Models (LLMs), namely OpenAI's ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0, Google's Bard(LaMDA), and Microsoft's Bing AI in discerning the truthfulness of news items using black box testing. A total of 100 fact-checked news items, all sourced from independent fact-checking agencies, were presented to each of these LLMs under controlled conditions. Their responses were classified into one of three categories: True, False, and Partially True/False. The effectiveness of the LLMs was gauged based on the accuracy of their classifications against the verified facts provided by the independent agencies. The results showed a moderate proficiency across all models, with an average score of 65.25 out of 100. Among the models, OpenAI's GPT-4.0 stood out with a score of 71, suggesting an edge in newer LLMs' abilities to differentiate fact from deception. However, when juxtaposed against the performance of human fact-checkers, the AI models, despite showing promise, lag in comprehending the subtleties and contexts inherent in news information. The findings highlight the potential of AI in the domain of fact-checking while underscoring the continued importance of human cognitive skills and the necessity for persistent advancements in AI capabilities. Finally, the experimental data produced from the simulation of this work is openly available on Kaggle.