什么是人?对人工智能作者身份和归属的新解释

Heather Moulaison‐Sandy
{"title":"什么是人?对人工智能作者身份和归属的新解释","authors":"Heather Moulaison‐Sandy","doi":"10.1002/pra2.788","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Recently, the scholarly community has been eagerly exploring how AI‐produced content should be integrated into both academic writing and scholarly publishing. This paper investigates the prevailing responses to the introduction of ChatGPT in November 2022 and the interest that has been afforded it by both the academy and the publishing industry. A review of the published literature on aspects of ChatGPT authorship was carried out, finding that government and the publishing industry have unequivocally asserted that large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT do not possess the traits of a person and are not able to author texts as a result. Other approaches, including practice, have been less vehement. To assess the integration of instructions on referencing ChatGPT using APA, top Google hits in the .edu domain were collected and analyzed over a 6‐week period from March 14 to April 18, 2023, a time during which official recommendations of the APA Style were finalized. Findings reveal that librarians were quick to provide guidance, but slow to update that guidance, contributing to the potential for misunderstanding the affordances of and best practices for work with LLMs.","PeriodicalId":37833,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What Is a Person? Emerging Interpretations of <scp>AI</scp> Authorship and Attribution\",\"authors\":\"Heather Moulaison‐Sandy\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/pra2.788\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Recently, the scholarly community has been eagerly exploring how AI‐produced content should be integrated into both academic writing and scholarly publishing. This paper investigates the prevailing responses to the introduction of ChatGPT in November 2022 and the interest that has been afforded it by both the academy and the publishing industry. A review of the published literature on aspects of ChatGPT authorship was carried out, finding that government and the publishing industry have unequivocally asserted that large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT do not possess the traits of a person and are not able to author texts as a result. Other approaches, including practice, have been less vehement. To assess the integration of instructions on referencing ChatGPT using APA, top Google hits in the .edu domain were collected and analyzed over a 6‐week period from March 14 to April 18, 2023, a time during which official recommendations of the APA Style were finalized. Findings reveal that librarians were quick to provide guidance, but slow to update that guidance, contributing to the potential for misunderstanding the affordances of and best practices for work with LLMs.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37833,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.788\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.788","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近,学术界一直在热切地探索如何将人工智能生成的内容整合到学术写作和学术出版中。本文调查了对2022年11月引入ChatGPT的普遍反应,以及学术界和出版业对它的兴趣。对ChatGPT作者身份方面的已发表文献进行了回顾,发现政府和出版业毫不含糊地断言,像ChatGPT这样的大型语言模型(llm)不具备人的特征,因此无法撰写文本。其他方法,包括实践,都没有那么激烈。为了评估使用APA引用ChatGPT的说明的整合情况,在2023年3月14日至4月18日的6周时间里,我们收集并分析了。edu域名的顶级谷歌点击量,在此期间,APA风格的官方建议最终确定。调查结果显示,图书馆员提供指导的速度很快,但更新指导的速度很慢,这可能会导致对法学硕士工作的可行性和最佳实践的误解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
What Is a Person? Emerging Interpretations of AI Authorship and Attribution
ABSTRACT Recently, the scholarly community has been eagerly exploring how AI‐produced content should be integrated into both academic writing and scholarly publishing. This paper investigates the prevailing responses to the introduction of ChatGPT in November 2022 and the interest that has been afforded it by both the academy and the publishing industry. A review of the published literature on aspects of ChatGPT authorship was carried out, finding that government and the publishing industry have unequivocally asserted that large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT do not possess the traits of a person and are not able to author texts as a result. Other approaches, including practice, have been less vehement. To assess the integration of instructions on referencing ChatGPT using APA, top Google hits in the .edu domain were collected and analyzed over a 6‐week period from March 14 to April 18, 2023, a time during which official recommendations of the APA Style were finalized. Findings reveal that librarians were quick to provide guidance, but slow to update that guidance, contributing to the potential for misunderstanding the affordances of and best practices for work with LLMs.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology
Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology Social Sciences-Library and Information Sciences
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
164
期刊介绍: Information not localized
期刊最新文献
Considering the Role of Information and Context in Promoting Health-Related Behavioral Change. Transforming Indigenous Knowledges Stewardship Praxis through an Ethics of Care “I Am in a Privileged Situation”: Examining the Factors Promoting Inequity in Open Access Publishing Shifting Roles of Citizen Scientists Accelerates High‐Quality Data Collection for Climate Change Research Investigating the Intersections of Ethics and Artificial Intelligence in the Collections as Data Position Papers
×
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