ChatGPT answers my Prompts

When we went remote for the pandemic, to stimulate more discussion, I came up with a Discussion Board assignment where students answered weekly prompts. The prompts were loosely connected to what students were learning in class, and I was aiming for them to be somewhat broad and open-ended. I also hoped they would elicit thoughtful answers. I chose not to use prompts this year because I’m working on new things like my study guides. It’s a coincidence that I stopped using them before ChatGPT was released because I suspect it would be well-suited to answering my prompts, given that it is a stochastic parrot.

 

Let’s put it to the test. I’ve picked a number of prompts from this list where you can see what I thought about the student responses. In my classes students essentially got free participation points by meeting the minimum requirements and posting something. I preface my question to ChatGPT with: “Please write a one-paragraph (120-200) word answer to the following prompt from the perspective of a chemistry college student:” before pasting in the prompt. Here are the results.

 

Prompt: The process of breaking something down into its smaller parts is called Analysis. We've discussed atoms as being the fundamental parts that make up molecules and matter. Can matter be fully described by "the sum of its parts"? That is by breaking something down into its fundamental parts, can you understand what it is (or how it works), or might you lose some understanding in the process?

 

ChatGPT: I would say that matter cannot be fully described by "the sum of its parts." While atoms are indeed the fundamental parts that make up molecules and matter, breaking something down into its constituent parts may not necessarily provide a complete understanding of the material. For instance, certain properties of matter, such as its color, texture, and reactivity, may not be immediately apparent from a purely atomistic view. Additionally, the behavior of complex systems may not be predictable solely from knowledge of their individual components, as emergent properties may arise from interactions between these parts. Therefore, while analysis can be a useful tool for understanding the composition of matter, it is not sufficient for a complete understanding of the material's properties and behavior.

 

A bit bland, but I like that ChatGPT inserted a discussion about complex systems. Not as impressed about reactivity not being from an atomistic view because that’s the whole point of chemistry. But hey, if it’s G-Chem 1, maybe the students haven’t internalized this yet.

 

Prompt: On the first day of class, we talked about the simplicity and versatility of Aristotle's Four Elements (Earth, Water, Air, Fire), but modern chemistry has chosen a different (possibly messier and less versatile) way to classify elements. Today, scientists have "identified" close to 120 elements. And although isotopes exist, we have chosen not to label them as different elements. What do you think about the way elements are classified? Could different choices have been made? Feel free to speculate on creative possibilities.

 

ChatGPT: I believe that the modern classification of elements is more accurate and reflective of our understanding of the nature of matter than Aristotle's Four Elements. While Aristotle's approach was intuitive and elegant, it did not take into account the complexity and diversity of chemical substances. Modern chemistry, on the other hand, is based on the periodic table, which arranges elements based on their atomic structure and chemical properties. This classification allows for a more nuanced understanding of the behavior of different elements and their interactions with each other. While it is possible that different choices could have been made in the classification of elements, it is unlikely that any alternative system would be as comprehensive or useful as the periodic table. However, there is always room for innovation and creativity in science, and new ways of classifying elements could be developed as our understanding of the nature of matter continues to evolve.

 

More bland and robotic sounding. No comment.

 

Prompt: If life was found on other worlds, would organisms have evolved eyes? (Why or why not?) If an organism did evolve an apparatus for vision, what might their world look like to them and how might that view be different from alien human Earthling visitors to their world (if interstellar tourism was safe and possible)?

 

ChatGPT: Whether or not organisms on other worlds would have evolved eyes depends on the unique environmental and evolutionary pressures of their respective worlds. If the environment of a planet is consistently dark or lacks any sources of light, then the development of eyes may not have provided an evolutionary advantage to organisms. Alternatively, if a planet has a consistently bright environment, then organisms may have evolved adaptations such as protective membranes to shield their eyes from the intense radiation. If an organism on another world did evolve an apparatus for vision, their world would look drastically different to them compared to human Earthlings. Depending on the wavelengths of light their eyes are able to detect, colors and shapes may appear completely different than what we see on Earth. Additionally, the visual acuity and perception of depth may be different as well. An interstellar tourism experience would need to take into account the potential differences in sensory perception and environmental adaptations in order to provide a safe and informative experience for both the aliens and the Earthling visitors

 

A bit more interesting and resembles what some of my students would write. Not bad.

 

Prompt: Chemistry is all about the behavior of electrons in atoms. While we know the mass and charge of an electron, it turns out there are many other things we don't know, for example its size, or where it is located in an atom (Bohr was wrong about the orbits). It's not just that we don't know, but we fundamentally CANNOT know (Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle). We can only describe electrons in probabilistic terms. What do you think about this "fuzziness" in our knowledge of electron behavior? Is it strange that we know the mass and charge but can't know other things?

 

ChatGPT: I find the "fuzziness" in our knowledge of electron behavior to be fascinating and essential to the nature of chemistry as a field. While it may seem strange that we can know the mass and charge of an electron, but not its precise location or other characteristics, the probabilistic nature of electron behavior is what allows us to understand the chemical properties and interactions of matter. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle tells us that there is a fundamental limit to how much we can know about the properties of particles at the quantum level, and this applies not just to electrons but to all matter. Instead of being limited by our inability to know certain properties of electrons, we can embrace the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics and use it to predict and understand the behavior of atoms and molecules. In fact, the "fuzziness" in our knowledge of electron behavior has led to many breakthroughs in fields such as materials science and nanotechnology, where the unique properties of matter at the quantum level can be exploited for specific applications.

 

Mostly repeating what I said and adding applications vaguely at the end. Meh.

 

Prompt: Last week we discussed quantum numbers, their rules, and their restrictions and how those might have led to the arrangement of the periodic table (that's not what happened historically but it's interesting to think about). If one of the quantum number rules were different, how might that change the arrangement of the periodic table? Would there be shorter or longer rows? Might the shape change? Suggest a speculation!

 

ChatGPT: If one of the quantum number rules were different, it could have a significant impact on the arrangement of the periodic table. For example, if the restriction on the maximum number of electrons in each orbital were lifted, the shape of the periodic table could change from its current block layout to a more radial or spherical arrangement. This is because the current block arrangement is based on the maximum number of electrons that can occupy each subshell, which is determined by the Pauli Exclusion Principle and the Aufbau Principle. However, if these principles were relaxed, there would be no restriction on the number of electrons that could occupy a particular subshell, leading to a more complex and potentially less orderly arrangement of the elements. Additionally, the properties and behaviors of the elements could be affected in unpredictable ways, as the electronic configurations of the atoms would be different from what we observe in our current understanding of quantum mechanics.

 

Vague and general-ish, but that’s what I got from my students. ChatGPT mimics them well in this instance.

 

Prompt: While living organisms utilize metals, the vast majority of compounds are covalent, formed from non-metals and predominantly C, H, O, N (with smaller amounts of S and P). Carbon, in particular, forms the backbone of almost all these compounds. Life predominantly uses only a few elements in the periodic table. Any thoughts or speculations as to why this might be? Is there something special about covalent compounds, or about carbon? Is there something puzzling about this?

 

ChatGPT: The reason that living organisms utilize covalent compounds formed from non-metals, with a heavy emphasis on carbon, is likely due to the unique properties of carbon. Carbon is able to form strong covalent bonds with a wide variety of other elements, allowing for the formation of complex and diverse organic molecules. Additionally, the ability of carbon to form stable double and triple bonds allows for even greater complexity in molecular structures. Furthermore, the strength and stability of covalent bonds allows for the storage and transmission of genetic information, which is essential for life. While other elements are also important for life, the versatility of carbon in forming a wide variety of compounds is likely a key factor in why it is so heavily utilized. Overall, while it is interesting to ponder why life primarily uses a few select elements, it is clear that the properties of covalent compounds, and carbon in particular, play an essential role in the chemistry of life.

 

Not bad. Bringing up bond strength, and also double and triple bonds of carbon and the diversity of molecules is what I would have expected my students to say.

 

Prompt: Write one balanced chemical reaction (that involves bonds being made and broken). For each substance in the chemical equation, state (1) whether it is covalent, ionic, or metallic, and (2) whether it is a solid, liquid, gas, or in aqueous solution, under the conditions of the reaction. Then in a couple of sentences, tell us why you think this reaction is interesting -- presumably why you chose it.

 

ChatGPT: The balanced chemical reaction I have chosen is the combustion of propane, which can be written as: C3H8(g) + 5O2(g) -> 3CO2(g) + 4H2O(g). In this reaction, propane (C3H8) is a covalent gas, while oxygen (O2) is a covalent gas. The products, carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O), are both covalent gases as well. This reaction is interesting because it is an example of a combustion reaction, where a hydrocarbon fuel (propane) reacts with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide and water. Combustion reactions are essential for energy production in many industries, and they also have important environmental implications due to the release of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. Additionally, balancing the equation requires careful consideration of the stoichiometry of the reaction, which is an important skill in chemistry.

 

Okay, so my question wasn’t that interesting. ChatGPT does a solid job here in answering it.

 

Why this blog post? I’ve been wondering if ChatGPT could take over writing my blog or at least providing significant scaffolding. I think the answer might be yes. Most of today’s blog was cut-and-paste. I’d like to think that I have a certain quirky writing style and off-the-wall ideas that ChatGPT is unlikely to emulate. Then again, I could feed it a bunch of my data and ask it to write the way I do, and maybe it will. Ah, well, should I keep on writing? I suppose so, since the point of my blog isn’t so much to communicate my thoughts to others as providing an extended storage of my thoughts that is easily searchable. I also use it to try and improve my writing by just doing it more! But I can thank ChatGPT for providing some fodder for today’s post. I cranked it out in 30 minutes, much faster than average. Lazy me. Not sure whether I’ll assign prompts on the LMS Discussion Board again.