{"id":64566,"date":"2023-03-24T10:56:21","date_gmt":"2023-03-24T02:56:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.99.co\/singapore\/insider\/?p=64566"},"modified":"2024-11-14T16:17:03","modified_gmt":"2024-11-14T08:17:03","slug":"can-chatgpt-pass-res-exam","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.99.co\/singapore\/insider\/can-chatgpt-pass-res-exam\/","title":{"rendered":"Can ChatGPT pass the Real Estate Salesperson (RES) exam?"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\r\n

ChatGPT may be smart enough to pass law and business exams in the US<\/a>. But the same can\u2019t be said for exams in Singapore.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Last month, Straits Times tested<\/a> the chatbot with PSLE questions. And it failed the English, Maths, and Science papers.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

It seems like that\u2019s not the only exam in Singapore that OpenAI’s ChatGPT can\u2019t pass. As a property portal, we at 99.co<\/a> can\u2019t help but wonder if ChatGPT can pass the Real Estate Salesperson (RES) exam.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Those who wish to enter the real estate industry must meet certain criteria<\/a>, including passing the RES exam. The passing mark is 60%.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

(Psst…for new RES agents, you can get our agent account free for three months! Find out more here<\/a>.)<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

While we don\u2019t have a ten-year series for RES exams, we found sample RES exam questions on CEA\u2019s website<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

So we used these 10 questions to quiz ChatGPT, giving them context beforehand that these are RES exam questions in Singapore. While it\u2019s not a comprehensive test, it gave us an idea of the chatbot\u2019s capability to answer exam questions and explain property-related matters in Singapore.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

The questions are all multiple-choice questions (MCQ), just like in the actual RES exams (2023 onwards). Out of these 10 questions, ChatGPT only managed to get three right. So it failed the test.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\"Seller<\/a><\/figure>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

What ChatGPT got wrong<\/h2>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

After each question, the chatbot replied with its answer and explanation. Based on the explanations given, it seems like it got them wrong because of wrong information.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Used the old TDSR<\/h3>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

This is showed by ChatGPT\u2019s answer to a question on loan requirements, explaining that the Total Debt Servicing Ratio (TDSR)<\/a> is 60%.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\"chatgpt<\/a>\r\n
Screenshot from ChatGPT.<\/figcaption>\r\n<\/figure>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

However, with the December 2021 cooling measures<\/a>, the TDSR has been lowered from 60% to 55%.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

(We note that in the original sample questions from CEA, the options were not updated to reflect this. So in our test, we\u2019ve changed the options to reflect the change.)<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

We note that this is because of a limitation of the chatbot.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\"chatgpt<\/a>\r\n
Screenshot from ChatGPT.<\/figcaption>\r\n<\/figure>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Since its training data was last updated in September 2021, it would have missed the December 2021 cooling measures announcement.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

This also means that for now, it won\u2019t be able to give the correct answer on changes in the sector after September 2021.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

But ChatGPT also struggled with property matters and regulations that do not have any changes after the last update of its training data.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Wrong definition of power of attorney<\/h3>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

For instance, there\u2019s this question on the ideal arrangement of someone who had a mild stroke recently and wanted to ensure continuity in the management of his properties, should anything bad happen to him.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Options are a combination of these: a lasting power of attorney, power of attorney, owning the property in joint tenancy, and owning the property in tenancy-in-common.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

The chatbot\u2019s answer is lasting power of attorney and power of attorney. While it gave the correct definitions of lasting power of attorney, joint tenancy, and tenancy-in-common<\/a>, it did not do so for power of attorney<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\"chatgpt<\/a>\r\n
Screenshot from ChatGPT.<\/figcaption>\r\n<\/figure>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
\"chatgpt<\/a>\r\n
Screenshot from ChatGPT.<\/figcaption>\r\n<\/figure>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

A person with a power of attorney can only sign on behalf of the donor, but not manage their properties.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Confused about the CPF housing grants?<\/h3>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

ChatGPT got the CPF housing grants<\/a> mixed-up.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

When asked about the maximum CPF grant amount a Singaporean buyer buying a BTO flat for the first time can get, its answer was S$120,000. Which wasn\u2019t even among the four options provided.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\"chatgpt<\/a>\r\n
Screenshot from ChatGPT.<\/figcaption>\r\n<\/figure>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

It explained that the person is eligible for the Additional CPF Housing Grant of S$40,000 and Enhanced CPF Housing Grant of S$80,000.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

While there were previously Additional CPF Housing Grant and Special CPF Housing Grant, both have since been replaced by Enhanced CPF Housing Grant in September 2019.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

(Yes, the CPF housing grants can be confusing, even for some of us when we first started writing about property. But this chatbot should be smart enough to know the change, right? Right?!)<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

ChatGPT also can\u2019t do math<\/h3>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Perhaps what\u2019s most amusing to us is that the chatbot can\u2019t do simple calculations correctly.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

One question we asked is on the property tax payable for someone who owns one owner-occupied house and one rental residential property (aka non-owner occupied property).<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Never mind if it doesn\u2019t use the updated tax rates for its calculation.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

(Property tax rates have since changed effective 1 January 2023<\/a>. But since its training data was last updated in September 2021, it used the tax rates previously applicable from 2015 to 2022.)<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Never mind if it applied the wrong formula to calculate the tax rate.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

(For an owner-occupied residential property with an annual value<\/a> of S$65,000, it applied a 4% tax rate on the remaining S$57,000 instead of the remaining S$47,000 \u2013 which was the previous tax rate.)<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\"chatgpt<\/a>\r\n
Screenshot from ChatGPT.<\/figcaption>\r\n<\/figure>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

The fact is, it stumbled on doing simple maths. Just like it did for the PSLE maths papers<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

To calculate the property tax for non-owner occupied residential property with an annual value of S$42,000, this was their calculation (again, we note that it\u2019s using the tax rate effective 2015):<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

(S$30,000 x 10%) + (S$12,000 x 12%) = S$2,600<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

If we use the tax rate effective 2015, the tax payable for the rental property should have been S$4,440!<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n