Pretrained Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable success across diverse domains, with education and research emerging as particularly impactful areas. Among current state-of-the-art LLMs, ChatGPT and DeepSeek exhibit strong capabilities in mathematics, science, medicine, literature, and programming. In this study, we present a comprehensive evaluation of these two LLMs through background technology analysis, empirical experiments, and a real-world user survey. The evaluation explores trade-offs among model accuracy, computational efficiency, and user experience in educational and research affairs. We benchmarked these LLMs performance in text generation, programming, and specialized problem-solving. Experimental results show that ChatGPT excels in general language understanding and text generation, while DeepSeek demonstrates superior performance in programming tasks due to its efficiency-focused design. Moreover, both models deliver medically accurate diagnostic outputs and effectively solve complex mathematical problems. Complementing these quantitative findings, a survey of students, educators, and researchers highlights the practical benefits and limitations of these models, offering deeper insights into their role in advancing education and research.

The developments in Generative AI technologies have paved the way for numerous innovations in different fields. Recently, Generative AI has been proposed as a competitor to AES systems in evaluating student essays automatically. Considering the potential limitations of AI in processing idioms, this study assessed the scoring performances of Generative AI models for essays with and without idioms by incorporating insights from Corpus Linguistics and Computational Linguistics. Two equal essay lists were created from 348 student essays taken from a corpus: one with multiple idioms present in each essay and another with no idioms in essays. Three Generative AI models (ChatGPT, Gemini, and Deepseek) were asked to score all essays in both lists three times, using the same rubric used by human raters in assigning essay scores. The results revealed excellent consistency for all models, but Gemini outperformed its competitors in interrater reliability with human raters. There was also no detectable bias for any demographic group in AI assessment. For essays with multiple idioms, Gemini followed a the most similar pattern to human raters. While the models in the study demonstrated potential for a hybrid approach, Gemini was the best candidate for the task due to its ability to handle figurative language and showed promise for handling essay-scoring tasks alone in the future.

This study presents a novel dual-perspective approach to analyzing user reviews for ChatGPT and DeepSeek on the Google Play Store, integrating lexicon-based sentiment analysis (TextBlob) with deep learning classification models, including Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) and Bidirectional Long Short Term Memory (Bi LSTM) Networks. Unlike prior research, which focuses on either lexicon-based strategies or predictive deep learning models in isolation, this study conducts an extensive investigation into user satisfaction with Large Language Model (LLM) based applications. A Dataset of 4,000 authentic user reviews was collected, which were carefully preprocessed and subjected to oversampling to achieve balanced classes. The balanced test set of 1,700 Reviews were used for model testing. Results from the experiments reveal that ChatGPT received significantly more positive sentiment than DeepSeek. Furthermore, deep learning based classification demonstrated superior performance over lexicon analysis, with CNN outperforming Bi-LSTM by achieving 96.41 percent accuracy and near perfect classification of negative reviews, alongside high F1-scores for neutral and positive sentiments. This research sets a new methodological standard for measuring sentiment in LLM-based applications and provides practical insights for developers and researchers seeking to improve user-centric AI system design.

The integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into recommender systems has enabled zero-shot, personality-based personalization through prompt-based interactions, offering a new paradigm for user-centric recommendations. However, incorporating user personality traits via the OCEAN model highlights a critical tension between achieving psychological alignment and ensuring demographic fairness. To address this, we propose PerFairX, a unified evaluation framework designed to quantify the trade-offs between personalization and demographic equity in LLM-generated recommendations. Using neutral and personality-sensitive prompts across diverse user profiles, we benchmark two state-of-the-art LLMs, ChatGPT and DeepSeek, on movie (MovieLens 10M) and music (Last.fm 360K) datasets. Our results reveal that personality-aware prompting significantly improves alignment with individual traits but can exacerbate fairness disparities across demographic groups. Specifically, DeepSeek achieves stronger psychological fit but exhibits higher sensitivity to prompt variations, while ChatGPT delivers stable yet less personalized outputs. PerFairX provides a principled benchmark to guide the development of LLM-based recommender systems that are both equitable and psychologically informed, contributing to the creation of inclusive, user-centric AI applications in continual learning contexts.

The increasing use of large language models (LLMs) in natural language processing (NLP) tasks has sparked significant interest in evaluating their effectiveness across diverse applications. While models like ChatGPT and DeepSeek have shown strong results in many NLP domains, a comprehensive evaluation is needed to understand their strengths, weaknesses, and domain-specific abilities. This is critical as these models are applied to various tasks, from sentiment analysis to more nuanced tasks like textual entailment and translation. This study aims to evaluate ChatGPT and DeepSeek across five key NLP tasks: sentiment analysis, topic classification, text summarization, machine translation, and textual entailment. A structured experimental protocol is used to ensure fairness and minimize variability. Both models are tested with identical, neutral prompts and evaluated on two benchmark datasets per task, covering domains like news, reviews, and formal/informal texts. The results show that DeepSeek excels in classification stability and logical reasoning, while ChatGPT performs better in tasks requiring nuanced understanding and flexibility. These findings provide valuable insights for selecting the appropriate LLM based on task requirements.

In particular, the ChatGPT model (GPT-3.5 and GPT-4) [1] has demonstrated its potential to generate human-like conversational abilities, enabling it to engage in meaningful dialogues, answer questions, and generate text across a wide range of topics, including science, entertainment, and politics [13, 14, 20]. The ability of these models to generate coherent and contextually relevant text has made them a powerful tool for content creation and enabling new ways of human-machine interactions. Despite their potential benefits, the widespread adoption of LLMs has raised concerns about their potential misuse, particularly in generating disinformation [16, 23, 25], fake news [11, 27], and hate speech [10, 22]. Beyond these widely recognized concerns, another critical issue has gained increasing attention in recent months: the potential of these models to manipulate public opinion, both due to the inherent biases embedded in their training process and the biases deliberately introduced or reinforced by their developers or maintainers. The most modern LLMs designed to interact with humans are generally trained using at least two phases. First, they are trained on large-scale text corpora, which inevitably incorporate the ideological, cultural, and political perspectives present in the source.

While there is an increased discourse on large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT and DeepSeek, there is no comprehensive understanding of how users of online platforms, like Reddit, perceive these models. This is an important omission because public opinion can influence AI development, trust, and future policy. This study aims at analyzing Reddit discussions about ChatGPT and DeepSeek using sentiment and topic modeling to advance the understanding of user attitudes. Some of the significant topics such as trust in AI, user expectations, potential uses of the tools, reservations about AI biases, and ethical implications of their use are explored in this study. By examining these concerns, the study provides a sense of how public sentiment might shape the direction of AI development going forward. The report also mentions whether users have faith in the technology and what they see as its future. A word frequency approach is used to identify broad topics and sentiment trends. Also, topic modeling through the Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) method identifies top topics in users' language, for example, potential benefits of LLMs, their technological applications, and their overall social ramifications. The study aims to inform developers and policymakers by making it easier to see how users comprehend and experience these game-changing technologies.

Background: AI-powered code generation, fueled by Large Language Models (LLMs), is revolutionizing software development. Models like OpenAI's Codex and GPT-4, alongside DeepSeek, leverage vast code and natural language datasets. However, ensuring code quality, correctness, and managing complex tasks remains challenging, necessitating thorough evaluation. Methodology: This research compares ChatGPT (version o1) and DeepSeek (version R1) for Python code generation using online judge coding challenges. It evaluates correctness (online judge verdicts, up to three attempts), code quality (Pylint/Flake8), and efficiency (execution time/memory usage). Results: DeepSeek demonstrated higher correctness, particularly on algorithmic tasks, often achieving 'Accepted' on the first attempt. ChatGPT sometimes requires multiple attempts or failures. ChatGPT encountered fewer issues, used comparable or slightly less memory, consumed less execution times and wrote fewer lines of code. Conclusion: DeepSeek exhibited superior correctness in Python code generation, often requiring fewer attempts, suggesting an advantage in algorithmic problem-solving. Both models showed almost similar efficiency in execution time and memory use. Finally, this research provides insights for developers choosing AI coding assistants and informs future AI-driven software development research.