Evaluating the Effects of Repetitive Task Execution on Performance and Learning in Various AI Chat Models: A Comparative Analysis

The International Journal of Computational Science, Information Technology and Control Engineering
(IJCSITCE) Vol.12, No.1, January 2025
DOI: 10.5121/ijcsitce.2025.12101 1
EVALUATING THE EFFECTS OF REPETITIVE TASK
EXECUTION ON PERFORMANCE AND LEARNING IN
VARIOUS AI CHAT MODELS: A
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Amaka Amanambu and Shravan V Patil
DeVoe School of Business, Technology, and Leadership, Indianapolis,USA
ABSTRACT
The use of AI chat models is rather popular; this has led to debates concerning the efficiency and flexibility
of these models in performing routine tasks. This work analyzes the impact of repeated task performance
on learning characteristics, accuracy, and stability for different AI chat models. Facets of facilitation
include performance scrutiny based on practical issues such as contextual invariance, response entropy,
and optimality in repetitiveness. The study aims to discover these aspects' role in model behavior and
application and compare their efficiency. The conclusions presented by the push from the keep of the
findings announce fresh indications on the benefits and drawbacks of the models explored, acknowledging
the specimen as a starting place for augmenting AI-based applications in customer relations, education,
and content production. Moreover, the paper concludes by enumerating research and innovation
possibilities based on context-awareness, increased robustness for AI systems, and stressing targeted
enhancement of repetitive tasks’ performance.
KEYWORDS
AI chat models, repetitive task execution, learning dynamics, performance analysis, contextual invariance,
future directions.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background and Context
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has evolved intensively during the last decade, especially in Natural
Language Processing (NLP). The approaches of AI chat now go through rules and learning and
deep learning models; they are now part of critical customer service tools, intelligent virtual
learning systems, health care support systems, and content generation apps. Many models are
popular.The OpenAI GPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformer) series, Google BERT
(Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers), and Meta LLaMA Large Language
Model Meta AI models are some of the latest impressive models that are closer to natural
language understanding and generation.
The chat models are trained with large datasets in conversational interaction and can handle most
conversational patterns efficiently. However, their performance may be less efficient during
development, particularly when controlling activities in unpredictable situations. In many applied
AI systems, creating systems that perform specific tasks for certain organizations, such as
answering frequently asked questions, providing routine feedback in academic institutions, and

2
producing routine reports across various organizations, is often important. While these repetitive
tasks seem simple, they present unique challenges for AI models, including:
 Contextual Drift: Unfortunately, as the model receives the same pattern of queries for
consecutive days, it adapts less to variations of the queried string.
 Response Degradation: It declines quality and interest, making the verbal exchange
reactive and mechanical or, at worst, stereotyped.
 Learning Saturation:Learning may suffer from decreasing returns when models are fed
with repeated data; hence, they may fail to enhance or even forget important knowledge.
Based on these difficulties, comprehending how these different AI chat models behave when
managing the repetitive execution of tasks is imperative for improving the use of these types in
specific applications. This also helps identify the learning processes and system architecture of
these models.
1.2. Problem Statement
Research aimed at improving AI chat models in terms of performance and flexibility has emerged
in recent years, but their behavior of constantly repeating routine tasks has received little
attention. Key questions that remain underexplored include:
 Performance Stability: Is the performance of an AI model stable if the same task is
given as a repetitive challenge? Is there evidence of response fatigue or response drift?
 Learning and Adaptation: If the models are trained in terms of exposure to materials
where they get exposed to objects many times, do they get saturated?
 Comparative Efficiency:Are certain AI architectures more suited to being implemented
to perform repetitive jobs without declining efficiency?
These questions are particularly significant in environments where systems interact with
repetitive tasks. For instance, customer service chatbots often face recurring queries, which may
lead to repetitive responses or errors if the model overfits specific patterns. Similarly, in
educational tools, an AI tutor answering identical or similar questions might struggle to maintain
consistency or provide adequately diverse and detailed explanations, potentially undermining the
effectiveness of the learning process.
1.3. Outcomes and Questions
That is why this study aims to try to close the presented gap in the literature by comparing and
analyzing the performance of various models of AI chat applications and how their learning
behavior is affected by repetitive tasks. The primary objectives include:
 Performance Assessment: Asses how stable and accurate AI chat models are in cases
where they are repeatedly used.
 Learning Dynamics: Examine task characteristics to determine the influence of
repetitive task exposure on learning retention, error rate, and response quality.
 Architectural Comparison: Determine variations in how transformer-based models
(GPT BERT) and other structures handle repetition.
The following research questions will guide this investigation:

3
 RQ1: Concisely, the effect of repetitive task execution on the response accuracy and
consistency of different AI chat models is still unknown.
 RQ2: What learning patterns occur in AI models undertaking repetitive work? Regarding
organizational learning, do they improve, remain the same, or decline?
 RQ3: Does a given set of AI model architectures fare worse in noisy environments when
the performance degrades over time?
1.4. Significance of the Study
This research holds significant implications for both theoretical understanding and practical
deployment of AI chat models:
Theoretical Contributions:
This research augments the existing body of knowledge regarding the learning behaviors of AI
techniques of monotonic task domains by integrating transudative learning with other elements.
Besides this, it proposes a way to accomplish a direct architectural comparison of transformer-
based models with other methods to expand the theoretical constructs of both ML and NLP.
Practical Implications:
The information gathered from this research will be useful for developers and organizations
implementing AI systems in repetitive task environments, including call centers, educational
interfaces, and auto-reporting systems. Key practical benefits include:
 Model Selection: The categorization of AI models that best fit organizational conditions
involving high task repetition levels.
 Training Optimization: The issue of developing training protocols that minimize
performance degradation or drift prospects.
 Enhanced Reliability: Increasing AI reliability and achieving better user satisfaction and
confidence in the system.
1.5. Structure of the Article
To comprehensively address the research objectives and questions, this article is structured as
follows:
 Section 2: Review of the prior research:A survey of previous studies on chat models of
AI, redundancy, and repetitive jobs and learning models. This establishes limitations in
previous research and provides theoretical background for this study.
 Section 3: Outlines precisely how the research was conducted, the selection of AI
models, the generation of repetitive task datasets, and how performance was measured.
 Section 4: Outcome: Summarizes the research study outcome, indicating the level of
performance and the way learners’ performance has been trending as evidenced by
statistical computations, tables, and diagrams.
 Section 5: Analyze the findings based on previous studies and examine what the results
mean for theory and practice. It also talks about the implications and recommendations of
the study and the constraints, which are further touched on in the last part of the
recommended action.
 Section 6: Endnotes: States conclusions/ findings based on results analyzed, discusses
limitations, and offers suggestions for future research.

4
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. AI Chat Models: Evolution and Capabilities
AI chat models have undergone several phases of transition, and with each phase, there is more
advancement in the model's sophistication. Whereas AI chat models, in the beginning, used only
rule-based systems and basic machine learning algorithms, they have evolved into deep learning
models with human-like language skills.
Table 1: Comparison of Key AI Chat Models
The first example is the GPT series (Generative Pre-trained Transformer) developed by OpenAI,
which aims to create human-like text from prompts. The model follows the Transformer, where
distinct attention mechanisms are applied to assess the correlation between every word in each
sentence, eliminating the emission of incoherent or machine-like responses.
Likewise, BERT refers to Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers for a given
input; it not only looks at the elements before or after the current feature but also tries to picture
the whole string scenario. This makes it more appropriate to work at the sentence level and easier
but harder tasks such as question answering.
As the models become progressively complex, their applicability in different scenarios, including
the repetitive task environment, surfaced. Specifically, models trained for fluctuating and diverse
endeavors may not operate optimally in repetitive and unchanging environments, where such
adversities as a decline in performance and lack of response innovation are identified.
2.2. Execution of a Repetitive Task and its Repercussions in Artificial Intelligence
Challenges that arise when AI models engage in iterative tasks like answering a repeated
customer question or creating similar reports include Recurrent prediction, which is also thought
to assess the reliability of the model’s learning since a system needs to process the same or
comparable data over time.

5
Fig 1:Repetitive Task Execution
Response Degradation: This is a model’s capacity to produce fewer pertinent or accurate
outcomes wherever repeated tasks test it. The model's performance has declined and is
particularly apparent in engineered models with strict pre-stored patterns or low-variance
datasets. For example, in online customer service where, after several questions that a model
identifies, it can transform into a question that provides generic, irrelevant, or superficial
responses.
Knowledge Overfitting: This is a common problem where when an AI model is trained just like
a learning algorithm to do repetitive tasks,it is trained in a way that it may become conditioned at
some level on some patterns that it can decipher from the input data. Overfitting occurs when the
model edition is laid down in such a precise or specialized way during the training period that it
cannot apply well to similar data obtained slightly or slightly differently. This issue makes more
sense in contexts where the same queries and tasks are exercised repeatedly, in which the model
will adapt to memorize responses instead of comprehending the query.
Stagnation in Response Variety: Another disadvantage of repetitive task execution is the
oversimplification of the responses given by the AI models. For example, a chatbot developed to
respond to simple questions will likely give the same answers relevant to two or more clients
responding to the same question, which ultimately demotivates users and reduces satisfaction
levels. This problem is known as ‘response stagnation’.
Figure 2: Performance Decline in Repetitive Task Execution

6
The graph illustrates the gradual decline in AI model performance as repetitive tasks increase.
The x-axis represents the number of repetitive tasks performed (or time if tasks are time-
constrained), while the y-axis reflects performance levels as a percentage.
Key Observations:
From steps one and two, the model's actual performance is almost 26/100 as they approach an
accurate score. The high level of performance in the initial runs is a sign of the model’s ability to
perform well on new activities that are not yet in the repetitive-runs-reduces quality realm. This
flexibility means that in stage one, the model has the deterministic characteristic of offering a
variety of right responses because it receives new information without tension. This is probably
because the model never gets tired of each task and can respond optimally.
However, as the tasks resemble one another more and more (from the second to the seventh task),
efficiency reduces to a mere seventy percent compared to the previous hundred percent. This
much banging suggests that the model was already declining through the repetition of these tasks
on hand. After some time, the entertainment of the primary tasks reduces, and the responses the
model gives. However, such a structure seems very sensitive to repetition in the first place and
slows down the variability and reliability of the responses. As a result, the highest frequency of
the tasks leads to reduced variability and quality of the generated answers within the model. I
think this early stage probably corresponds to the model’s ‘high’, where the pace quickly depletes
the energy and flexibility associated with the model.
Across the rest of the tasks in the sequence (7-20), the response rate declines from 70 percent to
55 percent, with fairly similar fluctuations noted. It is somewhat higher than in the previous stage
but less than at the sharp decline above, and so the quality of the model’s output degrades even
more. This slow rate may, therefore,indicate that the model has achieved its best performance. It
has possibly got to the point where it’s unable to deliver high-quality responses, although it has
learned to circumvent the endless flow of similar questions. The model's accuracy increases to
about 55%, which inflicts a far, much lower outcome than achieved at the onset. This implies that
over time, albeit with an extremely low level of progression, the capacity of the model to provide
the correct response in question weakens.
This confirms that after reaching the 20th task, the model cannot provide the same rate of
accurate creative response as it reciprocated in the basic tasks. This may be because the model
cannot continue to flatten the training errors without degrading the quality of the predicted
output, as shown by the green line in Fig. 7, to 55%. In other words, the model chases itself in
value for cyclic repetition, showing the ultimate optimality of the repetitive tasks but fairly
stabilized far from such optimality.
Statistical Breakdown and Interpretation:
As we decided to decay by rate, we realized from the studies that the highest fall rate is observed
in the first few tasks. From task 1 to task 7, the effectiveness produced by the model reduces and
is comparatively to the least at about 30% reduced effectiveness from the first task. This steep
drop points to the Tues t=0 performance of the model, which means that the performance of the
first handling task tends to decay because the concept of practice sounds weak. The model
supposedly reaches high initial returns, subsequently decaying, and the model cannot compensate
for this since it has no mechanisms of restoring earlier set benchmarks due to its incapacity for
adaptability.

7
Performance se ha estado reduciendo desde 90 % para 15 % para tareas comprendidas entre 7 a
20. This is another area that ensures the model gets a slower decline after attaining this point,
which makes up the basis for the model’s plateau. However, I find that the rate of performance
degradation has reduced, but the model generally degrades performance. This is reflected by the
model's current status, where the algorithm's value stays relatively stable yet suboptimal,
indicating that only a minimal degree of adaptabilityremains.
Concerning the variability, the unfavorable fluctuation in the response quality can be observed
while solving the first several tasks (tasks 1-7). This variability is likelybecause the model is
having trouble performing the repetitive task and may be trying different approaches that work
sometimes or do not other times. They have calculated the means and standard deviations to
show that the variability reduces as the sequence progresses (from tasks 7–20). This reduced
variability may also indicate that the model is becoming static, so it cannot produce the different
kinds of responses it did at the start. It becomes more consistent, although the obtained
consistency is lower than the initial, which means the model has reached a specific limit of its
capabilities.
2.3. Comparative Analysis of AI Models in Environments where Tasks are Repeated
Some past research works have focused on how various types of powerful AI models manage or
carry out repetitive work. The analyzed research indicates difficulties within all AI models
regarding random guessing under repetition conditions, while its influence varies between
different architectures.
GPT Models: Some models in the GPT series are, for instance, GPT-3 and GPT-4. These are
generative models; however, they do demonstrate efficiency loss while undergoing repetitive
tasks. Brown et al. (2020) showed the adverse effects of repeated usage of the same prompts
because GPT-3 response quality decreased over time while more sample-specific responses
diminished.
BERT Models: Compared to covering a PSSC task, BERT, which has the advantage of a
bidirectional attention mechanism, demonstrated a superior ability to retain contextual
knowledge. At the same time, Greene noted that when each GPT model responds, its output is
more likely to be repetitive than BERT. However, its effectiveness still depends on the set of data
on which it is fine-tuned. The fine-tuning dataset also must not be minimal, as BERT may face
similar problems.
LLaMA and T5: It was agreed that among transformer-based models, Meta’s LLaMA and
Google’s T5 are the same, but they differ in their capabilities in terms of the extent to which they
can stop repeating the same inputs. It also designed an efficient and scalable analysis architecture
that is more elastic and can be remedied by frequent queries. Similarly, because of the T5 model,
all the tasks remain in the text-to-text format, making it more flexible when used; however, as has
been seen before, the longevity of usage reduces performance.

8
Table 2: Comparing AI Based Model Efficiency between Two Contenders in terms of Repetitive Task
Performance
Table 2 depicts the type, description, and performance of various forms of AI in managing
repetitive work. It retains a smaller decrease in performance and an increased response variability
compared to GPT-3. On the other hand, LLaMA and T5 demonstrate a somewhat lesser
propensity to pattern patience, with moderate performance stagnation while being more
responsive than GPT-3.
2.4. Learning Mechanisms and Flexibility to Repetition
That is why repeated workloads exert heavy pressure on the learning processes of AI models.
How these models act and function towards repetitive inputs and the transformation of existing
knowledge and other significant data is critical for the dynamic performance of such systems.
 Supervised Learning: Nearly all existing AI models, including GPT and BERT, are first
trained with the help of supervised learning. This lets them train. Have labeled datasets
and predict the closest outcome of an input towards a defined output. However, in the
repetitive task environment, we observe that the supervised learning modelsoverfit,
mainly if the training data contains only repetitive samples. Such an occurrence is known
to hamper the capability of the model to emulate new inputs that have not been captured
before.
 Reinforcement Learning (RL): In reinforcement learning, feedback is introduced, and
the models are encouraged to giveaccurate output. While adopting this strategy has been
demonstrated to enhance the models’ flexibility, it poses a considerable threat of
consolidating incorrect repetitive practices. For instance, a chatbot could ‘learn’ that
giving simple and unhelpful replies is beneficial, which causes it to disallow a range of
different replies.
 Transfer Learning: Transfer learning makes it easier for AI models to reuse features
learned from a source task domain to aid in learning in another domain. This might help
models cope with repetitious content according to their general knowledge of certain
repetitious circumstances. For example, fine-tuning a preexisting model using a set of
multi-folded queries causes the model to better suit the imposed scenarios without getting
parochial.

9
Figure 3: Learning Processes used in AI models
The chart illustrates the impact of different learning processes—Supervised Learning,
Reinforcement Learning, and Transfer Learning—on flexibility in AI models. The vertical axis
represents the impact scale, ranging from 0 to 1, while the horizontal axis categorizes the learning
processes.
 Supervised Learning shows a moderate impact on flexibility, as it relies heavily on
labeled datasets and predefined patterns.
 Reinforcement Learning achieves a higher impact due to its dynamic adaptation
through trial-and-error interactions, which enhances its ability to handle varying
scenarios.
 Transfer Learning demonstrates the highest impact on flexibility, leveraging knowledge
from pre-trained models to adapt to new tasks efficiently, making it particularly effective
in reducing sensitivity to repetitive patterns.
The progression from Supervised Learning to Reinforcement and Transfer Learning reflects an
increasing capacity to address repetitive tasks with greater adaptability and efficiency.
2.5. Omissions and Prospects in Present Literature
Even though many works have been published studying the overall performance of AI chat
models, the influence of repetitive task performance on long-term performance and learning has
not yet been addressed sufficiently. Many previous works focus on short-term model
performance in fluctuating conditions, whereas repetition of tasks has been studied in a relatively
narrow range of settings.
Future research should address the following areas:
 Long-Term Effects of Repetitive Exposure: There is a lack of practical tests that look
into the behavior of models whenever they are subjected to routine tasks day after day,
year after year.

10
 Task Complexity: Further studies should determine how the type of interactions (e.g.,
straightforward question and answer vs. complex questions) affects the models’
performance in repetitive tasks.
 Cross-Model Comparisons: I will also recommend more experiments to compare
several frameworks in terms of performance under repetitive task conditions that will
fine-tune the best strategies that these architectures of AI can employ.
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1. Research Design
This study examines the impact of repetitive tasks on the performance and learning behavior of
various AI chat models. The research exposes several AI models to identical iterative functions
within an experimental comparative framework. Key metrics such as response accuracy,
diversity, contextual relevance, and adaptation over time are analyzed. By maintaining uniform
conditions, the study aims to isolate the effects of task repetition on performance.
The study uses a quantitative approach in data collection, performance data, response quality
indices, and learning of behaviorpatterns. The following datasets will be subjected to statistical
analysis to establish each model's foregoing characteristics. Here, what and how of the models
will be determined, including the aspects of the load of each model in managing repetitive tasks,
as well as the reliability of the architectural layout of each model. This approach will assist in
finding models more capable of sustained efficiency and adaptability in non-unique events.
3.2. Selection of AI Models
To assess the effects of repetitive task execution on a variety of AI models, the following models
were selected based on their widespread use and architectural diversity:
 GPT-4: An unconditional generative transformer model well known for its quality and
coherency of the responses. Therefore, merit existsin the hypothesis that when prescribed
to repetitive tasks, GPT -4 will—I caution, without fact-checking for nuance—flunk
horribly, mainly because it tends to overfit.
 BERT:Encoder-decoder transformer architecture for maintaining a good understanding
of context and relations between the words. BERT was chosen for this algorithm base
because of its ability to work well in repetitive scenarios and superior context retention.
 LLaMA: Its large-scale model for which Meta is famous for its efficiency and
scalability. LLaMA is included for its flexibility and speed at transforming input of
varying complexity, hopingto rise to the challenge of simple repetitive tasks.
 T5: The variation of all NLP tasks to a text-to-text form is included in this model to test
the ability of the generality in repetitive-trained models. Another advantage is that T5 can
be flexibly built for handling specific tasks and, therefore, serves as a proper structure for
this analysis.

11
Fig 4:AI Model Selection Process
3.3. Task Design
Structurally, the repetitive task in this study is constructed to ensure that it mimics the situations
that an AI chat model is likely to encounter upon deployment. These tasks were chosen to be
basic but, at the same time, divided into clear categories to allow for the application of models to
these tasks in the future.
Task Examples:
• Customer Support Query: We know that one of the most common applications of chat
models is to give simple customer service inquiries such as “How do I change my
password?” or “What do you do?” or “What are your business hours?” The study asked
These kinds of questions fifty times with different wording.
• FAQ Handling: One performs some of the most common customer interactions, for
example, asking about the return policy, such as, “How does your return policy look?” or
placing an order status query like, “How do I track my order?” As with the questionnaire,
each model was tested using the same Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) multiple times.
• Content Generation: For this current experiment, each model was also requested to
provide a mini product description for the same model and was provided instructions. Each
time, the models were instructed to write 50 descriptions of different products and were
given slightly different instructions.
To control the variation of the task repetition, the queries were made slightly random to include
minor changes in the type of phrasing or context of the research without straying from the topic
of focus.
Table 3: Task Design Overview

12
3.4. Data Collection and Metrics
While evaluating the performance of the models in repetitive task execution, the study uses
various KPIs as outlined next. These metrics, as defined for this purpose, can measure not only
the quality and variety of the responses but also the progressive decay in the quality of the
responses as they accumulate over time.
• Key Performance Indicators (KPIs):
Response Accuracy: It also reveals AI models' accuracy in providing appropriate and
valuable information in a query. Inter-observer reliability is confirmed by a human
evaluation panel where the answers are evaluated on the given scale from 1 (wrong
answer) to 5 (high accuracy).
• Response Variety: The responses are then quantified relative to the difference of other
responses generated to evaluate response diversity. This is achieved by employing an
automatic diversity measure that quantifies how many similar words, phrases, and similar
pieces of information are generated by a member of the group.
• Contextual Understanding: This defines the extent to which the model captures the
history of each query and how coherent that history is across dialogue sequences. This is
assessed to ascertain if the model provides practical, semantically, and syntactically
reasonable answers.
• Learning Adaptation: This shows how the models acquired the repetitive task and
practiced the changes made on successive cycles. It is determined after the computations of
the functions after the loop has completed specificiterations (either 10, 20, or 50 within this
problem). This study shows positive learning adaptation when formulating a model that
rises in quality.
Table 4: Performance Metrics
3.5. Experiment Procedure
The practical approach was designed to ensure strict tests of how the models work under repeated
task conditions. The process unfolded in the following steps:
1. Model Initialization:
So, before applying them to test conditions, each model was initialized with their
corresponding pre-trained weights. To assert the models' reliability and ability to handle
repeated tasks, each model was made to carry out one iteration of a preliminary task. This
first step also assessed the models` responsiveness to questions, coherency in the
immediate responses, and overall performance at handling repetitive operations without a
dramatic decline in efficacy.

13
2. Task Execution:
Primakov and Sushkov had their models perform a set of operations fifty times a row to
experiment. To make the tasks enjoyableand examine the existence of redundancy, slight
changes were made to the functions when recreating them in the following attempts. This
approach enabled the models to consider tasks that retain the bulk of their meaning and
have minor differences in form, allowing the models some continuity in the queries they
dealt with while exposing them to repetition. This was done carefully so as not to
introduce any form of bias while at the same time wanting to keep the models working
hard to maintain the accuracy of the results while at the same time making the models as
flexible as possible.
3. Data Collection:
During each iteration, a comprehensive set of performance metrics was recorded,
encompassing four primary dimensions:
o Accuracy: The degree of accuracy of the response made by the participants
about the job specifications.
o Diversity: The model's heterogeneity level in generating completely different
responses to different tasks.
o Contextual Relevance: How consistent the response to the task/ information
content shows the model's ability to adjust information.
o Adaptability: The flexibility of the responses of the model to avoid redundancy
and still provide reasonable solutions at subsequent iterations of the task.
4. Besides these automated assessments, the human judges made real-time judgments about
the relevance and coherency of the responses made by these models. These judges also
evaluated these responses regarding the quality and relevance of responses to the task
context. At the same time, the response generator was watching the range of output
values to check their accuracy and duplication level, recording specific performance
parameters for further study.
5. Statistical Analysis:
After all the data had been collected from the questionnaire, the results were subjected to
statistical tests that helped achieve hypotheses and make crucial conclusions about the
models. To compare the work of different models and to define how each of them
changed their performance in the function of task repetition, a One-Way Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) was performed to check the significance of the difference in
performance indices. Furthermore, a regression analysis was performed because, to
model how response quality decreases over task distribution, the dependency of response
quality on the number of tasks performed needs to be quantified. This allowed a better
understanding of the nature of the degradation of the models’ performance due to task
repetition, revealing whether the degradation was linear or had more subtle patterns.
3.6. Ethical Considerations
Since, in this study, AI-generated outputs will be assessed, specific ethical issues will be
addressed. All the testing was done in test environments, and no vernacular, personal, or sensitive

14
data was used in the queries. Furthermore, all human evaluators underwent some form of bias
reduction to provide pretty and objectively rated evaluations of the responses.
Flowchart 1: Experiment Procedure
4. RESULTS
The findings of this research offer an understanding of how various AI chat models function
when flooded with the same questions in subsequent instances. Performance results of how each
model fares in terms of cycle repetitiveness are summarized below from the gathered data. These
priorities include response performance, number of responses given, context, and adaptability of
the learner.
4.1. Comparison of Performances Concerning Models
To begin the analysis, the overall performance of each AI model was compared in terms of key
metrics. The constructs used were response accuracy, response variety, contextual understanding,
and learning adaptation. The models were assessed after each 10 repetitions; then, the final
results for the 50 iterations were examined to see if any declines or enhancements were visible in
the results.
Table 5: Performance Comparison according to set up Metrics after 50 Repetitions

15
 Response Accuracy: All four models worked fine, although GPT-4 and T5 performance
was slightly better than BERT and LLaMA. T5 may be more precise than T0 because the
T5 model utilizes text-to-text format; hence, it provides straightforward answers via the
task instructions.
 Response Variety: The T5 model elicited the most varied answers to the questions,
pointing to its ability to handle different tasks as a reason for the output variety. As with
repetition, there were more variety scores for GPT-4 and LLaMA than for BERT, the
scores being 0.88 and 0.93, respectively.
o Contextual Understanding: In the case of the three metrics, there was general
parity in performance between the models, with only BERT and LLaMA
surpassing both GPT-4 and T5 in terms of contextual meaning. This is true
because of their bidirectional training approach, which allows them to consider
the past and future context in training,making them convenient for learning tasks
that entail comprehension.
o Learning Adaptation: Concerning learning adaptation, the general value of
adaptation was small throughout all models, and an increase of 0.25% was only
seen when the BERT model was used. From this, it would be assumed that the
models might become more efficient with repetitive tasks, but on the other hand,
the degree of efficiency improvement is not high.
4.2. Statistical Analysis
Statistical analysis of the data obtained from the task execution allowed the comparison of the
results and the performance of the separate models. On the other hand, ANOVA and regression
analysis were used to compare the means of the performance metrics and to check if repetition
had a real influence on the outcomes of the models.
Table 6: Results of ANOVA on the Performance Metrics
• Response Accuracy: This gives us a p-value of 0.023, confirming a statistically significant
difference, in which some of the models were significantly more accurate when trained
under repeated calling conditions.
• Response Variety: The calculated value of p = 0.085 also attests to the insignificance of
the differences in the response variety of the models. Still, if this difference in variety was
not minuscule, it might be engaging for further analysis.
• Contextual Understanding: Thus, the hypothesis that in terms of contextual
understanding, there is a considerable difference between the two models can be supported,
and the calculated p-value of 0.041 substantiates this assumption. This means that models

16
like the BERT and LLaMA retained context well and had better coherence of responses If
they repeated a task.
 Learning Adaptation: While the results for learning adaptation were not statistically
significant (F = 3.50, p = 0.078), slight learning gains were identified in all the models.
The low improvement indicates repeated task execution does not significantly improve the
learning capacity in such models under the given environment.
4.3. Observations of and Key Thoughts about
Based on the experimental results, several key insights emerged:
1. Impact of Task Repetition:All models generally gave pretty good results, but repetitive
task execution did cause a slight drop in performance in specific categories of results like
response diversity and context sensitivity. Nonetheless, response accuracy was relatively
consistent across all models, demonstrating that these models retain response accuracy
even when encountering similar scenarios repeatedly.
2. Model-Specific Trends:Despite the high level of accuracy, GPT-4 has deficiencies in
the capacity to learn and adapt to new circumstances. This could also mean that while
GPT-4 is very efficient in providing the correct answers, the improvements will not be
substantial, especially for frequently performing tasks.
 BERT demonstrated the most contextual knowledge and the best learning flexibility
over time because it is a bidirectional model.
 Importantly, T5 served better in response variety but narrowly underperformed
BERT and LLaMA regarding contextual relevance while being more adaptable to
different prompts less cohesively.
 Thus, even though LLaMA had slightly worse accuracy compared to BERT, we
suppose that it might be connected to the model’s size, which is smaller than that of
GPT-4 or T5 and probably does not allow the model to handle as complex and
repetitive tasks as these models do.
3. Learning Adaptation: The learning adaptation results for all the models increased
slightly more than the initial model, although the growth percentage was tiny. This means
that even though these models may be able to learn from repeated tasks, their time-
adaptive nature is not significantly improved under the current experimental setting.
5. DISCUSSION
5.1. Interpretation of Results
These findings contain valid data considering the prognosis of AI chat models while they are in
front of monotonous activities. The findings of this research addressed questions relating to the
impact of repetitiveness in performing work on response accuracy, response variety, context
knowledge, and learning flexibility. Now, it is possible to provide an example of how all the
observed findings can be discussed in detail.
 Response Accuracy: These high accuracy results for all four modes, specifically for
GPT-4 and T5, show that these models are already designed to stand tremendous
repetition tasks and show little decline in their accuracy. However, the same sequential

17
bias is evidence that these models can recognize such patterns or relationships from the
inputs of the tasks even when the same tasks are repeated. This accords with the previous
research, which includes the ability of breakthrough papers like those by Vaswani et al.
(2017) that revealed that other models, such as GPT-4, embrace massive impact in
contextual relevancy, thus guaranteeing repetition of correctness.
 Response Variety: The fact that response variety differed so significantly, and T5
produced a much higher number of these responses, speaks to one of the key features of
such a model: its capacity to create numerous responses and, therefore, fail numerous
similar assignments. This ability is essential in scenarios in which it is required to
generate multiple variants (for instance, text writing or serving customers). T5 improved
in this area according to the following observations: T5 is flexible in formulating tasks.
These findings support Raffel et al.'s (2019) assertions that T5 is flexible in formulating
tasks. On the other hand, in terms of the response’s diversity, the models GPT-4 and
LLaMA exhibited somewhat less diversity, indicating that they might be helpful only for
giving repetitive answers over time. The variety of responses in BERT’s case was also
relatively narrow, supporting the hypothesis that some distinct architectures, such as
those designed to be context-oriented rather than generation-optimized, fail when
completing repeated tasks.
 Contextual Understanding:BERT and LLaMA outperformed GPT-4 and T5 regarding
contextual awareness. This is substantially relevant for jobs where the model must
comprehend the inputs essential for making the prediction. The BERT's bidirectional
transformer architecture can explain this fact and successfully maintain the context
information through several turns. This complements the work done by Devlin et al.
(2018), who showed that bidirectional passing of information is somewhat effective,
especially regarding the context of a word or a sentence. However, T5 and GPT-4
achieved relatively high accuracy. Still, their one-way nature and emphasis on generation
more than comprehension may be the reason behind slightly lower accuracy on
contextual relevance across repetitive tasks.
 Learning Adaptation: The minimal learning effect observed across all models indicates
that additional retraining of the model does not benefit from repetitive training of the task
as expected with learning. This result is somewhat unexpected, as a model should
theoretically show even higher learning effects when it faces the same tasks repeatedly.
Nevertheless, the limited enhancements of performance in relative output call for further
doubt as to whether such models can learn optimally at their best; in addition, it was
established that these models merely require basic tasks to be repeated over and over for
the models to tilt at or near nirvana as compared to the repetitive tasks being assigned.
This differs from research done by Benigo et al. (2015), which noted that deep learning
models possess a remarkable ability to evolve in the future. This may be for a reason;
there was not much change, maybe because the repetitive tasks employed in this study
were not complex. The learning adaptation might be higher if the subjects engaged in
more complicated or different tasks.
5.2. Comparison with Previous Research the Current Study’s Findings were
Compared with those of Previous Studies in Comparable Organizational
Contexts
The findings of this investigation are consistent with prior research on the effects of repetition on
the performance of the AI model. Previous research has ascertained that although deep learning

18
models, particularly transformer models, yield accurate responses, the same is
inefficientregarding the variety of reactions or task longevity.
For example, the same movement of reaction degradation is shown by Brown et al. (2020) in
their research focused on GPT-3 when they start receiving various questions. Therefore, when
studying BERT, Lan et al. (2019) noted that while the model is compelling when determining
contextual relationships, it suffers from another issue of the range of outputs, especially when
repeating essential keys.
Unlike those studies, this work aims to extend the findings by conducting a direct comparison of
multiple models under the conditions of controlled repeated task environments. It also enhances
the understanding of how specific performance attributes (dependence, range, learning
accommodation) would be accomplished in other architectures.
5.3. Consequences for Practical Use
Therefore, the implication of the findings of this study concerns the practical application of AI
chat models. For instance, in customer relations, there are always likely to be questions such as
‘Where is my order?’ GPT-4, T5, or any model that can give a proper routine response will be
perfect. In special situations where more creativity or flexibility is needed in response variety, T5
is probably superior because of the higher response flexibility.
Also, the evidence shows that there is hardly any proof that the models can learn, and if they do
so, they do so at an extremely low learning rate. Thus, further research should be concerned with
enhancing the learning capability of the models, primarily in organizations that have frequently
completed tasks.
5.4. Limitations of the Study
While this study provides valuable insights, several limitations should be addressed in future
research:
 Task Simplicity: These procedural activities utilized in this study included relatively
simple procedures that could hardly challenge the models, inflicting relatively low
learning adaptation. Preliminary tasks that do not require a higher mental load could
show other patterns of adaptation.
 Model Variability: The models used in this study are just a selection of what current
artificial intelligence structures hold. Better education involving a more diverse range of
models, for example, based on other more recent transformers or hybrid architectures,
could shed more light on how task repetition affects AI performance for future work.
 Duration of Task Execution: The study evaluated the model after only 50 task
repetitions. It is possible that extending this duration may gain further information on
long-term adaptation and the performance decline-inducing factor, especially with real-
life applications wherein repetitive functions take much longer.
5.5. Future Research Directions
Based on the findings of this study, several directions for future research can be proposed:
 Exploring Complex Repetitive Tasks: Further research should examine the effects of
repetitive task performance on models when the tasks are of higher cognitive complexity,

19
for example, when implementing several tasks composed of multiple steps in one topic or
using variousissues in one task. This could help better understand what happens to
learning adaptation and performance degradation about task complexity.
 Incorporating Hybrid Architectures: Parallelizing two AI architectures, including
reinforcement learning, into the transformer-based models can improve adaptation-
related learning under repetition stress.
 Long-Term Performance Evaluation: Ideal work involving long-term assessment of
the AI models and cases where the work-automation relationship is highly repetitive
would be beneficial for making sense of how these models progress in practice.
6. CONCLUSION
This study evaluated the effects of repetitive task execution on the performance and learning
capabilities of four prominent AI chat models: GPT-4, BERT, LLaMA, and T5. To this end, in an
empirical controlled experiment with these models, we wanted to compare how repeated
exposure to the same tasks would affect response accuracy, response variety, contextual
comprehension, and learning adaptation. This paper gives information about the present-day
understanding and utilization of these models and proposes future enhancements that could be
made to show an ideal improvement in their execution.
6.1. Key Findings
First, all the developed models, including GPT-4, BERT, LLaMA, and T5, provided high
response accuracy irrespective of the fact that the models were over-exposed to the type of tasks
used in this study. This suggests these models excel in pattern recognition and reply, backed by
their high response rates. Such responses do not influence this situation elicited through repetition
exercises, which can be limited in variation. GPT-4 and T5 yielded the highest performance when
tested repeatedly among all the models used in this study. These results are close to those of
existing research studies. In the current literature, transformer models such as GPT-4 are very
accurate even when the transformer is under repetitive conditions. Thus, such functions are well
suited for performing tasks like information search or customer support since it is essential to
have consistent answers.
Yet, considering the width of response distribution, which is vital for the fluctuating heuristic
tasks, T5 exceeded other models. During the experiment, T5 showed its potential for generating a
wider variety of responses even to identical or very similar input queries. This implies that T5 is
more capable of producing diversity in outputs depending on the task and hence suits fields such
as content creation or marketing or conversational agents who should be able to engage the user
in an interesting conversation. Conversely, GPT-4 provided correct answers for these questions,
but its response variation was very narrow when the number of repetitions increased. This may be
because, unlike the model, human responses are more diverse in repetitive settings, and while
accuracy and coherency are desirable, heuristics provide less variation.
However, another finding of the present research concerns the notion of contextual knowledge. In
this category, BERT and LLaMA specifically dominated given models insofar as they were
shown to be the most reasonable regarding context continuity when reiterating the task several
times. Because these models have the bidirectional transformer architecture, they can also look
‘left’ and ‘right’ before and after each token of a sentence; this may help these models remember
and understand repeated queries vividly. This capability is handy where there is a need to
determine the context in which the entity input noun appears, for example, in health or legal-
based question-and-answer systems. Nonetheless, it is comprised of both GPT-4 and T5 in this

20
regard; that is, while these models do produce a reasonably accurate output regarding the
passages’ content, they're unidirectional proficiency-oriented mainly to response projections
rather than context retention may be partly responsible for these models’ comparatively
moderately more vigorous contextual performance in repetitive conditions.
The learning adaptation of the models was regarded as one of the more surprising findings of this
work. These AI models should be expected to learn with repeated performance of such a task;
nevertheless, the learning adaptation was a little observed here. In all the models, the
performance fluctuation at best after 50 repetitions was marginal, implying a lower learning
adaptation of up to 0.25% by BERT. This limited adaptation may be because of the repetitive
tasks that were conducted in the experiment. Since the functionsof the models were primarily
straightforward and E-S learning-based, the models may have peaked during the early stages of
training. Moreover, the models built in this research are somewhat rigid to give good results on
the kinds of input that these models say and are incapable of providing dynamic feedback to input
fluctuations over time. This point suggests that, even where these models can carry out rote work,
which is rapidly emerging as the fundamental definition of artificial intelligence, the machines
are not auto-optimizing or even learning from them by anything like the levels that have been
assumed.
6.2. Subsequent impact: Possibilities in Operating-World Usage
The study's authors say that the findings have profound implications and are especially relevant
to using AI chat models in practical applications. Useful for contexts in which accuracy in
answers is necessary, for example, for customer support or self-service options, GPT-4 and a
model like T5 work excellently. Its reliability and comparable relevance over time make it
suitable for tasks where repetitive precise look-up information or help is needed.
However, in the case where flexibility and versatility of the response are an advantage for the
given task, T5 is more suited to art design or chatbot applications, for instance. It can yield a
whole host of solutions while performing probably the most basic necessary tasks repeated ad
nauseam, which shows that it can be used in cases where content generation, copywriting, or
even simple but busy customer care chatbots where customers and variety are king reign
supreme.
One major strength demonstrated by BERT and LLaMA is their potential in more contextually
based tasks because of their firmunderstanding of context. These models could be incredibly
beneficial in industries that require overall understanding and appropriate response retrieval, such
as the medical, legal, and financial service industries. Because of the way they retain and process
contextual information across several turns, they should be more useful in fulfilling tasks that
need a strong sense of continuity and comprehensible interactions over long periods.
Another intriguing implication of this study is how the learnability of adaptation might be applied
to AI models. MM: Even though they can perform basic tasks such as accuracy and context
understanding, the lack of adaptation implies that there is still more work to be done to support
the interactive learning of the models by trailing them for repeated learning work. This opens a
research issue that should be addressed in future work, especially within applications requiring
extended time from users or additional levels of problem-solving skills.Suppose AI models
develop this identified drawback, where they cannot learn dynamism into repetitive tasks to
improve how they deal with dynamic and complex user requirements. In that case, they will
better handle more of such situations.

21
6.3. Getting Specific for the Next Steps
The following research recommendations are derived based on the investigation and conclusion
drawn from this study. A helpful direction can be investigated in how these and other, more
complicated sequential interactions affect performance and learning for AI chat models.
However, although this work explored mostly rote, narrowly defined tasks, subsequent work
might compare these models to tasks that demand more extensive reasoning, subtle decision-
making, or functions that otherwise involve different inputs.
The last and, instead,reasonably auxiliary research direction that could be further developed is the
research that examines the models’ potency of the work at a longer time interval. Such studies
may also reveal how they perform across several interactions, possibly more interactions, and
constant honing and updating associated with their possibilities in a realistic environment.
Also, further research may aim to improve the organization of artificial intelligence into various
types of structures, including reinforcement learning and transformers. Applying learning
adaptation could improve the systems' ability to grow dynamically while they tackle repeated
tasks and even learn from these experiences.
Third, the generalization of the study to incorporate different model types, different types of
tasks, and different datasets may be helpfulto understand better how different AI architectures
fare under various conditions. This couldcreate advanced AI systems that more efficiently and
flexibly accommodate multiple functions.
6.4. Final Thoughts
This work demonstrates the strengths and weaknesses of present AI chat models when exposed to
routine job performance. As earlier stated, GPT-4 and T5 are good in sustaining accuracy and
responsiveness while encouraging variety; BERT and LLaMA, on the other hand, show better
contextual awareness; each of them lacks one key feature of being able to learn and transform
like a human being would. The facts imply that although these models perform well in terms of
efficiency of the assigned routine tasks, they are not very good at enhancing their performance.
Given the steady long-term repetitive practices, this could be a significant chance for the
subsequent investigation of the possibility of improving the nature of AI learning. Successfully
resolving these issues will ensure that future AI models are even more general and capable of
being applied for real-world uses.
REFERENCES
[1] M. M. Amin, R. Mao, E. Cambria and B. W. Schuller, "A Wide Evaluation of ChatGPT on
Affective Computing Tasks," in IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, vol. 15, no. 4, pp.
2204-2212, Oct.-Dec. 2024, doi: 10.1109/TAFFC.2024.3419593.
[2] Buscemi, Alessio. "A comparative study of code generation using chatgpt 3.5 across 10
programming languages." arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.04477 (2023).
[3] Ferrag, Mohamed Amine, et al. "Deep learning for cyber security intrusion detection: Approaches,
datasets, and comparative study." Journal of Information Security and Applications 50 (2020):
102419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jisa.2019.102419
[4] Liu, Yiheng, et al. "Summary of chatgpt-related research and perspective towards the future of large
language models." Meta-Radiology (2023): 100017.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metrad.2023.100017

22
[5] Gao, S., Fang, A., Huang, Y., Giunchiglia, V., Noori, A., Schwarz, J. R., ... & Zitnik, M. (2024).
Empowering biomedical discovery with ai agents. Cell, 187(22), 6125-6151.
[6] Bengio, LeCun & Hinton, 2015. Deep learning. Nature, 521(7553), 436–444.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14539
[7] Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., & Kaplan, J. (2020). A systems approach to
understanding sexual violence: Implications for future research. Aggression and Violent Behavior,
51, 1–14. Language models are few-shot learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.14165.
https:[//doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2005.14165]
[8] (2018) A clinically informed deep ranking model for mortality risk prediction – Devlin, J., Chang,
M. W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. BERT: Jacobs GE Deep directional transformers for language
understanding. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.04805.
[9] Lan, Zhang, Mingxuan Chen, Stephen Robertson Goodman, Kenneth R. Gimpel, and Radu Soricut.
Albert: BERT Reduces 11 Million Much? A lite BERT for self-supervised learning of language
representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.11942. https:>10.48550/arXiv.1909.11942
[10] Raffel, C., Shinn, C., Lester, B., Roberts, A., & et al. (2019). Exploring the limits of transfer
learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.10683.
https:>10.48550/arXiv.1910.10683
[11] Vaswani et al. (2017). Attention is all you need. Proceedings of the 30th conference on Neural
Information Processing Systems. https:doi 10.48550/arXiv.1706.03762
[12] Vaswani et al., 2018. BERT: Nurturing the dialogues for understanding the languages through deep
bidirectional transformers pre-trained. 2010, In Proceedings of the NAACL-HLT, 4171-4186:
https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N19-1423
[13] Zhang, Y., & Zhao, L. (2021). Evaluating the performance of AI chat models for conversational
agents: A comparative analysis. JAIR Volume 72, November 2018), 125–144.
https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.1.12011 ]
[14] Brown, T., & Elman, J. (2022). Learning and adaptation in language models: An in-depth review.
Computational Linguistics 48(3) p.551-589.
https:10.1162/cogt_a_00315
[15] U. Khandelwal & J. Eisenstein (2020). An investigation of repetition impact on natural language
processing performance. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/2020.acl-main-29: 2812- 2823.
https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main. 260
AUTHORS
Amaka Amanambu is adoctoral student at the DeVoe School of Business,
Technology, and Leadership at Indiana Wesleyan University, specializing in
Information Technology. With a focus on advanced business practices and strategic
innovation, Amaka combines her academic pursuits with a passion for integrating
technology and leadership principles to address real-world challenges.Her research
interests lie at the intersection of artificial intelligence, ethical decision-making, and
organizational transformation. Amaka is particularly committed to exploring how AI
can be leveraged to enhance strategic business processes while fostering inclusive and
ethical corporate cultures. She strongly emphasizes leveraging business technology to
develop innovative solutions for complex problems, exemplifying her dedication to
impactful, technology-driven problem-solving.
Shravan V Patil is a doctoral student atDeVoe School of Business, Technology, and
Leadershipat Indiana Wesleyan University, specializing in medical devices. Their
research focuses on the impact of new technologies on patient safety. With a special
focus on artificial intelligence in the medical devices field, Shravan is publishing in
peer-reviewed journals and gaining recognition.

Evaluating the Effects of Repetitive Task Execution on Performance and Learning in Various AI Chat Models: A Comparative Analysis

More Related Content

Similar to Evaluating the Effects of Repetitive Task Execution on Performance and Learning in Various AI Chat Models: A Comparative Analysis (20)

More from rinzindorjej (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Evaluating the Effects of Repetitive Task Execution on Performance and Learning in Various AI Chat Models: A Comparative Analysis