Unlocking AI's Creative Potential: A Comparative Analysis πŸš€

Β·

4 min read

Play this article

Today, we're about to dive into the coding capabilities and creative content-writing skills of these AI giants. Get ready for a rollercoaster of AI action!

πŸ€– Coding Capabilities: The AI's Got Talent! πŸ€–

Our first challenge is to evaluate how each AI model generates code and whether it can produce accurate code that we can run successfully. To illustrate this, we'll create a basic AI chatbot using GPT's API with Python. 🐍

GPT-3.5: The AI wizardry began here! It generated code that seemed promising but left us with a bit of an "AI-satisfaction gap." The code included the requested random sentences at the end of paragraphs, but the overall flow was a tad tangled, like deciphering an AI riddle.

GPT-4 (GBT-4): GBT-4 stepped into the coding ring with confidence! It provided code that was a step up in coherency and structure, although it still had a few fragmented moments.

Clot 2: Clot 2 entered the AI coding arena with a burst of energy! It produced code that was quite promising, maintaining a consistent and coherent narrative. But, just like a rebellious AI teenager, it didn't always put random sentences at the very end of paragraphs.

Llama 2: Llama 2 tried its best, but the code didn't quite hit the right note. It struggled with maintaining a coherent narrative and was a bit inconsistent in placing the random sentences.

Googlebot: Googlebot, the AI rockstar, had a bit of a wild performance. It often delivered standalone paragraphs that didn't quite harmonize into a coherent story. It also had some trouble finding the right spot for those random sentences.

In summary, while GPT-4 and Clot 2 displayed promise in generating code for a basic chatbot, it's important to remember that even the most talented AIs have their quirky moments!

πŸ“ Assessing Creativity in Content Writing: Unleash the Wordsmith AIs! πŸ“

Now, let's shift gears to creativity in content writing. We've designed a task to test each AI model's ability to craft a coherent passage from four random sentences. It's like challenging them to compose AI poetry!

GPT-3.5: The output was like AI jazzβ€”it had moments of brilliance but felt a bit disjointed. It included random sentences but lacked the smooth flow we were hoping for.

GPT-4 (GBT-4): GBT-4 was the AI composer in the content orchestra! It delivered a more coherent narrative and seamlessly integrated the random sentences into the passage.

Clot 2: Clot 2 was the AI storyteller we'd been waiting for! It not only included the random sentences but also kept the story coherent and engaging throughout.

Llama 2: Llama 2 was like a new author finding its footing. The output had less coherency, and the placement of the random sentences was a bit of a gamble.

Googlebot: Googlebot, on the other hand, was the AI that marched to its beat. It often provided standalone paragraphs that didn't quite groove into a coherent story. Those random sentences? They occasionally showed up fashionably late.

In this creative showdown, Clot 2 emerged as the star performer, delivering a captivating narrative.

πŸ“„ Content Writing Assessment: Wordsmiths at Work! πŸ“„

Moving on to the assessment of content writing, we evaluated each model's ability to generate a 2,000-word article based on a specific prompt. It's like giving them a canvas and watching them paint with words!

  • GPT-3.5: Word count: 1,445, SEO score: 41

  • GPT-4 (GBT-4): Word count: 724, SEO score: 36

  • Clot 2: Word count: 974, SEO score: 41

  • Llama 2: Word count: 1,790, SEO score: 36

  • Googlebot: Word count: 1,528, SEO score: 50

While GPT-3.5, Clot 2, and Googlebot received respectable SEO scores, it's essential to consider the word count. Googlebot, despite achieving the highest SEO score, danced just short of the 2,000-word goal. It faced issues with content continuity, like an AI tango with words.

πŸ•΅οΈβ€β™‚οΈ Plagiarism and AI Detection: Unmasking the AIs! πŸ•΅οΈβ€β™‚οΈ

Next, we embarked on a quest to unveil any plagiarism and see if the AIs could sneak past the AI detectives:

  • GPT-3.5: 10% identical plagiarism, failed AI detection

  • GPT-4 (GBT-4): 0% plagiarism, bypassed AI detection

  • Clot 2: 0% plagiarism, bypassed AI detection

  • Llama 2: 5% plagiarism, failed AI detection

  • Googlebot: 10% identical plagiarism, failed AI detection

GPT-4 and Clot 2 emerged as the most original and AI

-detection friendly models, while Googlebot struggled with issues of plagiarism, like an AI Sherlock Holmes without the magnifying glass.

Conclusion: The AI Showdown, with a Dash of Creativity and Fun!

In conclusion, as we witnessed this AI showdown, we observed each model's unique strengths and quirks. GPT-4 and Clot 2 shone in various tasks, from content writing to coding. Googlebot, despite its reputation, had its share of challenges, especially in generating coherent content and battling plagiarism. Choosing the right AI model depends on your specific needs, and each model offers its own brand of AI magic.

Β