Large Language Models (LLMs) as a Tool to Facilitate Information Seeking Behavior

This paper explores the emerging role of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude as AI assistants for information-seeking. Recent studies indicate LLMs allow more conversational querying compared to traditional keyword searches. Their ability to generate summaries and new text also differentiates LLMs. However, risks around bias, inaccuracies, and lack of proper citations necessitate caution. This paper examines how LLMs compare to existing practices across key domains of information access, service, and ethical issues. The analysis suggests that combining LLMs and traditional methods is advisable presently. LLMs introduce helpful capabilities but lack specialized expertise. Verifying LLM-generated content remains essential given the risks. Recommendations include prompt optimization, training improvements, disclaimers on limitations, and transparency around data use. With responsible design and policies, LLMs could enhance certain information-seeking tasks but should not fully replace diligent human research activities at this stage. More research is needed on realizing benefits while mitigating pitfalls.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
InfoScience Trends
Published
2024-09-14
DOI
https://doi.org/10.61186/ist.202401.01.15
Citations
4
Primary Topic
Topic Modeling
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.39
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Large Language Models (LLMs) as a Tool to Facilitate Information Seeking Behavior

Brady Lund, Nishith Reddy Mannuru, Aashrith Mannuru
4 citations
InfoScience Trends
Topic Modeling
1.39
article

Large Language Models (LLMs) as a Tool to Facilitate Information Seeking Behavior

Brady Lund, Nishith Reddy Mannuru, Aashrith Mannuru
article en
4 citations

Abstract

This paper explores the emerging role of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude as AI assistants for information-seeking. Recent studies indicate LLMs allow more conversational querying compared to traditional keyword searches. Their ability to generate summaries and new text also differentiates LLMs. However, risks around bias, inaccuracies, and lack of proper citations necessitate caution. This paper examines how LLMs compare to existing practices across key domains of information access, service, and ethical issues. The analysis suggests that combining LLMs and traditional methods is advisable presently. LLMs introduce helpful capabilities but lack specialized expertise. Verifying LLM-generated content remains essential given the risks. Recommendations include prompt optimization, training improvements, disclaimers on limitations, and transparency around data use. With responsible design and policies, LLMs could enhance certain information-seeking tasks but should not fully replace diligent human research activities at this stage. More research is needed on realizing benefits while mitigating pitfalls.

InfoScience TrendsVol. 1(3)
University of North Texas (US), The University of Texas at Dallas (US)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 15%
Topic Modeling
1.39
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.