G'day mate, how're ya goin? Today, I'm going to talk about one of the most sensational topics 'Al-based English test is far more reliable and unbiased than human-rating test.' In my view, this is probably true. Let's get started.
Al-based English test such as PTE and partially TOEFL iBT is probably more unbiased no matter what. First of all, how humans give you any score are very subjective compared to AI does. Of course, there would have the slightest chance for the exam candidates to receive a subjective score affected by a minor scoring category with accumulated data. But, this might often be a sort of programme error, not really an AI-led subjective mark. Al won't judge your performance based on your race, appearance, first language and even personality. What about humans? I don't think they are all consistent. Highly doubted.
Of course I could defend the effectiveness of taking a human-rating English exam a bit. For instance, a face-to-face speaking test is more practical and real, and also you can enjoy communicating with a native speaker. So, you can learn more natural conversational skills if you continue to take this sort of English test. However, whether your examiner gives you her/his smile and frequent nods or not, for example, doesn't mean you've done well. Conversely, you're getting a better score if your examiner doesn't give you any of those. What do I wanna say? Well, if you're not gonna be affected by those things and rather you don't really care about who they are and how they behave, then this sort of human-rating exam should be suitable for you. If you are a kind of person who's susceptible to people's moods, behaviours, appearances, etc, then you'd better stop taking any human-rating English exam. You know what I'm saying?
AI is far more accurate, reliable and unbiased, precisely because it's not only consistent with the same programme system within the fixed marking criteria, but it's also completely objective no matter who you are. Any level of subjectivity isn't involved at all. If you make spelling mistakes, then definitely your score goes down automatically. If you pronounce some words inaccurately or not fluently, then AI will mark your score down accordingly. In these respects, both AI and humans seem to be identical, but they're apparently not similar, right? Why? Because, humans are more tolerable, error-prone, relatively inaccurate, and many others. Of course, this is not always the case, I understand that some human examiners are perfectionist, and too accurate, stringent and unbiased. Despite this, I have to say, AI is more accurate and objective (= unbiased) in terms of how it is going to mark. I can only think about programme and system errors, in short, technical things, not the way of marking. What you have done at the exam and its result will definitely reflect the reality of what you've done regardless of any subjective matters. Your strong accent being interfered by your first language is one of the objective matters, not subjective, because although AI doesn't mark you down unless you try to enunciate each word and sentence naturally. However, if your accent interferes with the AI's ability to decipher the words that you're trying to say, then your score will definitely be affected severely.
Overall, choosing AI-based or human-rating English exam is up to you mate; however, from my experience, AI is far fairer and more accurate than humans. Ultimately speaking, if you just wanna boost more practical and real conversation skills, then a face-to-face oral exam is for you. In contrast, if you wanna rather refine pronunciation, boost oral fluency, and ultimately wanna test more accurate and unbiased English proficiency, then AI-based English test such as PTE is for you. Believe it or not, PTE gives you more chance to develop your practical English skills without having any sort of subjectivity involved.