{"id":22010,"date":"2024-10-24T09:43:36","date_gmt":"2024-10-24T04:13:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/?p=22010"},"modified":"2024-10-24T09:43:40","modified_gmt":"2024-10-24T04:13:40","slug":"comparison-of-four-preferred-ais-openais-chatgpt-meta-gemini-copilot","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/?p=22010","title":{"rendered":"Comparison of Four Preferred AI\u2019s : OpenAI’s ChatGPT ,Meta, gemini, copilot"},"content":{"rendered":"

Title<\/u><\/strong>: Comparison of Four Preferred AI\u2019s : OpenAI’s ChatGPT ,Meta, gemini, copilot<\/strong><\/p>\n

Author<\/u>: <\/strong>Prajwal Promod Jambhale (021330024157)<\/p>\n

Introduction<\/u>: <\/strong>This report explores the popularity and usage of four prominent AI\u2019s : OpenAI’s ChatGPT ,Meta, gemini, copilot is known for its wide-ranging of knowledge reference materials and guide us about some problems . they help us to save time and help us to collect information Quickly<\/p>\n

Objective<\/u>: <\/strong>To find out all are same or any one of them is different between the preferred AI\u2019s among the participant.<\/p>\n

Data Collection:<\/u> <\/strong>30 students of ITM Business School were surveyed. They rated these AI\u2019s on a scale of 1 to 10 via a Google Form, with 1 representing the lowest preference and 10 the highest. Following the data collection, the ANOVA: Single Factor test was then performed to compare the means of the ratings across the four AI\u2019s<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

Data Analysis: <\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

ANOVA<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Source of Variation<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

SS<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

df<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

MS<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

F<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

P-value<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

F crit<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Between Groups<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

58.6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

19.53333<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.353284<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.001729<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2.682809<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Within Groups<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

423.2667<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

116<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3.648851<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Total<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

481.8667<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

119<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

The calculated\u00a0F statistic (5.35)<\/strong>\u00a0is greater than the critical value of\u00a0F crit (2.68)<\/strong>. This indicates that the variance between group means is significantly greater than the variance within the groups.<\/p>\n

P-value<\/strong>:<\/p>\n

\u00a0The\u00a0P-value (0.001729)<\/strong>\u00a0is much less than common alpha levels like 0.05 or even 0.01. This suggests strong evidence against the null hypothesis.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/u>:<\/strong><\/p>\n