User preferences for ChatGPT-powered conversational interfaces versus traditional methods
Open accessAbstract
This study examined user preferences for ChatGPT-powered conversational interfaces vs traditional techniques. The study collected data from 175 selected volunteers utilizing a survey questionnaire. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to detect user preferences and compare them to the literature review. The study found that 70% of users chose ChatGPT-powered conversational interfaces over traditional techniques, citing convenience, efficiency, and personalization. Demographic data was explored. The participants were evenly distributed between male and female (50%) and aged 18 to 55 (mean = 35 years). This study affects ChatGPT and conversational AI development. The results indicate that users want to use these technologies in their daily lives. To improve ChatGPT, further study is needed in this area. However, this study's tiny sample size must be considered. To confirm these findings and investigate other factors affecting conversational interface user preferences, bigger and more diverse samples are needed.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The release of ChatGPT quickly ushered in an era of AI use across higher education institutions, forcing faculty and administrators to respond to an increase in academic misconduct, especially student use for text-based assignments.
“Due to its intuitive ease of use the release of ChatGPT [40] quickly ushered in an era of AI use across higher education institutions (HEIs) forcing faculty and administrators to respond to an increase in academic misconduct, especially the use of the application by students for assignments requiring text based responses.”
From Generative artificial intelligence in higher education: Evidence from an analysis of institutional policies and guidelines (2025) · cites this paper as [40]
The Data analysis section describes college students who used ChatGPT-powered interfaces, and the Literature Review discusses their perceived ease of use. The paper does not establish rapid adoption across higher education institutions, an increase in academic misconduct, or faculty and administrator responses to students using ChatGPT for text-based assignments (searched: academic misconduct, plagiarism, assignments). No page numbers were provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
OpenAI ChatGPT Generated Literature Review: Digital Twin in Healthcare
Aydın, Ö., & Karaarslan, E. (2022) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4308687 · Cited by 391 · see citing works
ChatGPT: Evolution or revolution?
Gordijn, B., & Have, H. T. (2023) · Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy · doi:10.1007/s11019-023-10136-0 · Cited by 317 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- M. Aljanabi, M. Ghazi, A. H. Ali, S. A. J. I. J. F. C. S. Abed, and Mathematics, "ChatGpt: Open Possibilities," vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 62-64, 2023.
- S. F. Jentzsch, S. Höhn, and N. Hochgeschwender, "Conversational interfaces for explainable AI: a human-centred approach." pp. 77-92.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Unlocking the opportunities through ChatGPT Tool towards ameliorating the education system
Javaid, M., Haleem, A., Singh, R. P., Khan, S., & Khan, I. H. (2023) · BenchCouncil Transactions on Benchmarks, Standards and Evaluations · doi:10.1016/j.tbench.2023.100115 · Cited by 535 · see citing works
McDonald, N., Johri, A., Ali, A., & Collier, A. H. (2025) · Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans · doi:10.1016/j.chbah.2025.100121 · Cited by 295 · see citing works
Artificial Intelligence in studies—use of ChatGPT and AI-based tools among students in Germany
von Garrel, J., & Mayer, J. (2023) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-023-02304-7 · Cited by 236 · see citing works
Generative AI in the Wild: Prospects, Challenges, and Strategies
Sun, Y., Jang, E., Ma, F., & Wang, T. (2024) · Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3642160 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
Wang, J., Hu, H., Wang, Z., Yan, S., Sheng, Y., & He, D. (2024) · Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3641917 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
- Authors
- Sakirin, T., & Ben Said, R.
- Affiliations
- International University (KH)
- Computer engineering department, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey
- Venue
- Mesopotamian Journal of Computer Science
- Publisher
- mesopotamian.press
- Published
- 2023-02-07
- Pages
- 24-31
- ISSN
- 2958-6631 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4324070671
- Cited by
- 38
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 3.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Mesopotamian Journal of Computer Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, conversational interfaces, conversational AI, user preferences, large language models, personalization, convenience, user acceptance
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
