Researcher profile

Stephen R. Piccolo

Stephen R. Piccolo contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 11 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
1works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

1 published item(s)

preprint2023arXiv

Many bioinformatics programming tasks can be automated with ChatGPT

Computer programming is a fundamental tool for life scientists, allowing them to carry out many essential research tasks. However, despite a variety of educational efforts, learning to write code can be a challenging endeavor for both researchers and students in life science disciplines. Recent advances in artificial intelligence have made it possible to translate human-language prompts to functional code, raising questions about whether these technologies can aid (or replace) life scientists' efforts to write code. Using 184 programming exercises from an introductory-bioinformatics course, we evaluated the extent to which one such model -- OpenAI's ChatGPT -- can successfully complete basic- to moderate-level programming tasks. On its first attempt, ChatGPT solved 139 (75.5%) of the exercises. For the remaining exercises, we provided natural-language feedback to the model, prompting it to try different approaches. Within 7 or fewer attempts, ChatGPT solved 179 (97.3%) of the exercises. These findings have important implications for life-sciences research and education. For many programming tasks, researchers no longer need to write code from scratch. Instead, machine-learning models may produce usable solutions. Instructors may need to adapt their pedagogical approaches and assessment techniques to account for these new capabilities that are available to the general public.