To what extent can language alone give rise to complex concepts, or is embodied experience essential? Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) offer fresh perspectives on this question. Although LLMs are trained on restricted modalities, they exhibit human-like performance in diverse psychological tasks. Our study compared representations of 4,442 lexical concepts between humans and ChatGPTs (GPT-3.5 and GPT-4) across multiple dimensions, including five key domains: emotion, salience, mental visualization, sensory, and motor experience. We identify two main findings: 1) Both models strongly align with human representations in non-sensorimotor domains but lag in sensory and motor areas, with GPT-4 outperforming GPT-3.5; 2) GPT-4's gains are associated with its additional visual learning, which also appears to benefit related dimensions like haptics and imageability. These results highlight the limitations of language in isolation, and that the integration of diverse modalities of inputs leads to a more human-like conceptual representation.

In this article, we describe a deployed educational technology application: the Criterion Online Essay Evaluation Service, a web-based system that provides automated scoring and evaluation of student essays. Criterion has two complementary applications: (1) CritiqueWriting Analysis Tools, a suite of programs that detect errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics, that identify discourse elements in the essay, and that recognize potentially undesirable elements of style, and (2) e-rater version 2.0, an automated essay scoring system. Critique and e-rater provide students with feedback that is specific to their writing in order to help them improve their writing skills and is intended to be used under the instruction of a classroom teacher. All of these capabilities outperform baseline algorithms, and some of the tools agree with human judges in their evaluations as often as two judges agree with each other.

Critique is an application he best way to improve one's writing instructor, revise based on the feedback, that is comprised of a suite of programs and then repeat the whole process as often as that evaluate and provide feedback for errors in possible. Unfortunately, this puts an enormous grammar, usage, and mechanics, that identify load on the classroom teacher, who is faced the essay's discourse structure, and that recognize with reading and providing feedback for perhaps potentially undesirable stylistic features. The companion scoring application, e-rater version As a result, teachers are not able to give 2.0, extracts linguistically-based features writing assignments as often as they would from an essay and uses a statistical model of wish. For example, the singular indefinite determiner a is labeled with the part-of-speech symbol AT, the adjective good is tagged JJ, the singular common noun job gets the label NN. After the corpus is tagged, frequencies are collected for each tag and for each function word (determiners, prepositions, etc.), and also for each adjacent pair of tags and function words. The individual tags and words are called unigrams, and the adjacent pairs are the bigrams. To illustrate, the word sequence, "a good job" contributes to the counts of three bigrams: a-JJ, AT-JJ, JJ-NN, which represent, respectively, the fact that the function word a was followed by an adjective, an indefinite singular determiner was followed by a noun, and an adjective was followed by a noun.