IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/spr/mgmchp/978-3-031-66115-0_10.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

Prompt-Engineering Testing ChatGPT4 and Bard for Assessing Generative-AI Efficacy to Support Decision-Making

In: Navigating Uncertainty Using Foresight Intelligence

Author

Listed:
  • Bruce Garvey

    (Strategy Foresight Limited)

  • Adam D. M. Svendsen

    (Norwegian Defence University College (NDUC/FHS))

Abstract

In this chapter, we examine what the Generative-AI (Gen-AI) systems of OpenAI’s ChatGPT4 and Google’s Bard (from 2024, re-named Gemini) can offer during each stage of the Strategic Options Analysis (SOA) process. Using a prompt-engineering approach, the work in this chapter has been conducted through running a series of parallel tests of ChatGPT4 and Bard at each stage of the SOA process, resulting in a number of outputs and findings that are presented alongside one another for ready comparison purposes. Beginning with the rationale for and development of a ‘focus question’, the Gen-AI systems are subsequently tasked on that basis following on from a version conducted manually. The chapter moves through the testing procedure, before delving into depth during the course of each stage of the SOA Process Sequence. The differences in ChatGPT4 and Bard outputs are displayed one after another in a highly comparative manner. They soon demonstrated their strengths and weaknesses, including as their outputs varied over time, such as during the two consecutive days in early June 2023 when the Gen-AI tests were conducted and run in parallel. Offering some preliminary conclusions and takeaways, in the section focused on Current Prompting Advice, answers are tabled as to the key question asked: Is Gen-AI/ChatGPT better than a manual process? Responses in this section set the scene for the presentation of some overall conclusions and takeaways in the form of both specific and more general insights. Ultimately, this area continues to be one to watch closely, recalling that the clue is in the name of ‘artificial intelligence’. It is always a requirement to further verify the Gen-AI outputs alongside both ‘human’ and ‘real’ intelligence. In addition, users should properly assess sources, whether they and their province are kept ‘classified’ for a whole slew of legitimate confidentiality reasons, relating to security, privacy, intentions and methods-used requirements.

Suggested Citation

  • Bruce Garvey & Adam D. M. Svendsen, 2024. "Prompt-Engineering Testing ChatGPT4 and Bard for Assessing Generative-AI Efficacy to Support Decision-Making," Management for Professionals, in: Navigating Uncertainty Using Foresight Intelligence, chapter 0, pages 167-212, Springer.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:mgmchp:978-3-031-66115-0_10
    DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-66115-0_10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:mgmchp:978-3-031-66115-0_10. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.