Unveiling the ethical positions of conversational AIs: a study on OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google’s Bard

Quintin P. McGrath
{"title":"Unveiling the ethical positions of conversational AIs: a study on OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google’s Bard","authors":"Quintin P. McGrath","doi":"10.1007/s43681-024-00433-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In an era where conversational AIs (CAIs) like OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google's Bard are becoming integral to daily life, understanding their ethical positions is paramount. This research delves into the expressed moral values of these CAIs, exploring how their pre-training influences their ethical stances. The study aims to assess the articulated ethical positions of ChatGPT and Bard, uncovering whether these systems align with particular moral values. By understanding their ethical positions, the research seeks to provide insights into how these CAIs might respond to prompts and guide users in their selection and utilization. Utilizing O’Boyle and Forsyth’s Ethical Position Questionnaire (EPQ-5), the research evaluated the CAIs’ levels of idealism and relativism. The study also involved a third CAI, Anthropic’s Claude and an online human panel, to analyze the reasoning behind the responses, providing a more nuanced understanding of the ethical positions. The initial findings revealed that ChatGPT aligns more with an ‘absolutist’ position, endorsing strict adherence to moral principles, while Bard leans towards a ‘situationist’ stance, valuing flexibility and situational considerations. However, further analysis by Claude and humans suggested a more complex categorization, with ChatGPT fitting the 'exceptionist' categorization and Bard aligning with ‘absolutism.’ The research underscores the significance of recognizing the trained-in ethical positions of CAIs, as they are not neutral but reflect particular ethical leanings. Understanding these positions is vital for interpreting CAI outputs and using these systems effectively and ethically. The study calls for further exploration into how these ethical positions might influence real-world applications of CAIs.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72137,"journal":{"name":"AI and ethics","volume":"5 2","pages":"921 - 936"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s43681-024-00433-6.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AI and ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43681-024-00433-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In an era where conversational AIs (CAIs) like OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google's Bard are becoming integral to daily life, understanding their ethical positions is paramount. This research delves into the expressed moral values of these CAIs, exploring how their pre-training influences their ethical stances. The study aims to assess the articulated ethical positions of ChatGPT and Bard, uncovering whether these systems align with particular moral values. By understanding their ethical positions, the research seeks to provide insights into how these CAIs might respond to prompts and guide users in their selection and utilization. Utilizing O’Boyle and Forsyth’s Ethical Position Questionnaire (EPQ-5), the research evaluated the CAIs’ levels of idealism and relativism. The study also involved a third CAI, Anthropic’s Claude and an online human panel, to analyze the reasoning behind the responses, providing a more nuanced understanding of the ethical positions. The initial findings revealed that ChatGPT aligns more with an ‘absolutist’ position, endorsing strict adherence to moral principles, while Bard leans towards a ‘situationist’ stance, valuing flexibility and situational considerations. However, further analysis by Claude and humans suggested a more complex categorization, with ChatGPT fitting the 'exceptionist' categorization and Bard aligning with ‘absolutism.’ The research underscores the significance of recognizing the trained-in ethical positions of CAIs, as they are not neutral but reflect particular ethical leanings. Understanding these positions is vital for interpreting CAI outputs and using these systems effectively and ethically. The study calls for further exploration into how these ethical positions might influence real-world applications of CAIs.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
揭示对话式人工智能的伦理立场:对 OpenAI 的 ChatGPT 和谷歌的 Bard 的研究
在一个像OpenAI的ChatGPT和b谷歌的Bard这样的对话式人工智能(CAIs)正在成为日常生活不可或缺的一部分的时代,理解它们的道德立场是至关重要的。本研究深入研究了这些cai表达的道德价值观,探讨了他们的预训练如何影响他们的道德立场。该研究旨在评估ChatGPT和Bard的明确伦理立场,揭示这些系统是否符合特定的道德价值观。通过了解他们的道德立场,该研究试图提供关于这些cai如何响应提示并指导用户选择和使用的见解。本研究采用O’boyle和Forsyth的道德立场问卷(EPQ-5),评估了cai的理想主义和相对主义水平。该研究还涉及第三个人工智能,Anthropic的克劳德和一个在线人类小组,以分析这些反应背后的原因,对道德立场提供更细致入微的理解。最初的研究结果显示,ChatGPT更倾向于“绝对主义”立场,支持严格遵守道德原则,而巴德则倾向于“情境主义”立场,重视灵活性和情境考虑。然而,克劳德和人类的进一步分析提出了一个更复杂的分类,ChatGPT符合“例外主义”的分类,而巴德则符合“绝对主义”的分类。“这项研究强调了认识到cai训练有素的道德立场的重要性,因为他们不是中立的,而是反映了特定的道德倾向。”理解这些位置对于解释CAI输出和有效地、合乎道德地使用这些系统至关重要。该研究呼吁进一步探索这些伦理立场如何影响cai在现实世界中的应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Against AI ethics: challenging the conventional narratives Legitimate expectations in the age of innovation Dehumanising education: AI and the capitalist capture of teaching An overview of AI ethics: moral concerns through the lens of principles, lived realities and power structures Justification optional: ChatGPT’s advice can still influence human judgments about moral dilemmas
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1