Comparing advice on climate policy between academic experts and ChatGPT

IF 6.6 2区 经济学 Q1 ECOLOGY Ecological Economics Pub Date : 2024-08-20 DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108352
{"title":"Comparing advice on climate policy between academic experts and ChatGPT","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108352","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>We compare the results from a recent global expert survey on climate policy with answers to the same survey by the online artificial-intelligence chatbot <em>ChatGPT</em>. Such a study is timely and relevant as many people around the world are likely to use ChatGPT and similar language models to inquire about climate solutions, which in turn might influence public opinion. The comparison provides insights about performance criteria, policy instruments, and use of information from distinct academic disciplines. With a few exceptions, responses by ChatGPT are informative and of high quality. We find that ChatGPT answers questions with less bias than experts from various scientific disciplines. The latter may also be a disadvantage as it seems to weight all the information available equally without accounting well for relevance, which arguably may require human rather than artificial intelligence. On the other hand, experts from distinct disciplines show difference in average responses, with some even expressing opinions inconsistent with objective evidence, meaning there is no consistent and unbiased expert opinion on climate policy. As a new way of synthesizing large amounts of academic and grey literature, ChatGPT can serve policymaking. However, since the procedure that it follows for collecting and summarizing information remains a black box, it is best regarded as a complement rather than a substitute to traditional literature reviews and expert surveys.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51021,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800924002490/pdfft?md5=f9c80a6ee193c2916742934fad040142&pid=1-s2.0-S0921800924002490-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecological Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800924002490","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We compare the results from a recent global expert survey on climate policy with answers to the same survey by the online artificial-intelligence chatbot ChatGPT. Such a study is timely and relevant as many people around the world are likely to use ChatGPT and similar language models to inquire about climate solutions, which in turn might influence public opinion. The comparison provides insights about performance criteria, policy instruments, and use of information from distinct academic disciplines. With a few exceptions, responses by ChatGPT are informative and of high quality. We find that ChatGPT answers questions with less bias than experts from various scientific disciplines. The latter may also be a disadvantage as it seems to weight all the information available equally without accounting well for relevance, which arguably may require human rather than artificial intelligence. On the other hand, experts from distinct disciplines show difference in average responses, with some even expressing opinions inconsistent with objective evidence, meaning there is no consistent and unbiased expert opinion on climate policy. As a new way of synthesizing large amounts of academic and grey literature, ChatGPT can serve policymaking. However, since the procedure that it follows for collecting and summarizing information remains a black box, it is best regarded as a complement rather than a substitute to traditional literature reviews and expert surveys.

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
比较学术专家和 ChatGPT 对气候政策的建议
我们将最近一项关于气候政策的全球专家调查结果与在线人工智能聊天机器人 ChatGPT 对同一调查的回答进行了比较。这样的研究既及时又有意义,因为世界各地的许多人都可能使用 ChatGPT 和类似的语言模型来询问气候解决方案,这反过来又可能影响公众舆论。通过比较,我们可以了解不同学科的绩效标准、政策工具和信息使用情况。除少数例外情况外,ChatGPT 的回答信息量大、质量高。我们发现,与来自不同科学学科的专家相比,ChatGPT 在回答问题时的偏见较少。后者也可能是一个缺点,因为它似乎对所有可用信息进行了同等权重,而没有很好地考虑相关性,这可能需要人工智能而非人工智能。另一方面,来自不同学科的专家的平均回答也存在差异,有些专家甚至表达了与客观证据不一致的观点,这意味着在气候政策方面不存在一致且无偏见的专家意见。作为一种综合大量学术和灰色文献的新方法,ChatGPT 可以为决策服务。然而,由于它所遵循的信息收集和总结程序仍是一个黑箱,因此最好将其视为传统文献综述和专家调查的补充而非替代。
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
Ecological Economics
Ecological Economics 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
12.00
自引率
5.70%
发文量
313
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Ecological Economics is concerned with extending and integrating the understanding of the interfaces and interplay between "nature''s household" (ecosystems) and "humanity''s household" (the economy). Ecological economics is an interdisciplinary field defined by a set of concrete problems or challenges related to governing economic activity in a way that promotes human well-being, sustainability, and justice. The journal thus emphasizes critical work that draws on and integrates elements of ecological science, economics, and the analysis of values, behaviors, cultural practices, institutional structures, and societal dynamics. The journal is transdisciplinary in spirit and methodologically open, drawing on the insights offered by a variety of intellectual traditions, and appealing to a diverse readership. Specific research areas covered include: valuation of natural resources, sustainable agriculture and development, ecologically integrated technology, integrated ecologic-economic modelling at scales from local to regional to global, implications of thermodynamics for economics and ecology, renewable resource management and conservation, critical assessments of the basic assumptions underlying current economic and ecological paradigms and the implications of alternative assumptions, economic and ecological consequences of genetically engineered organisms, and gene pool inventory and management, alternative principles for valuing natural wealth, integrating natural resources and environmental services into national income and wealth accounts, methods of implementing efficient environmental policies, case studies of economic-ecologic conflict or harmony, etc. New issues in this area are rapidly emerging and will find a ready forum in Ecological Economics.
期刊最新文献
Extending the Genuine Savings estimates with natural capital and poverty at the regional and national level in Italy Animal welfare, moral consumers and the optimal regulation of animal food production Is pro-environmental effort affected by information about others’ behavior? Incorporating use values into ecosystem specific accounts: Recreational value generated by saltmarsh at a mixed ecosystem site The biodiversity premium
×
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:481959085
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