ChatGPT破坏了人类的反身性、科学责任和负责任的管理研究

IF 4.5 2区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS British Journal of Management Pub Date : 2023-11-20 DOI:10.1111/1467-8551.12781
Dirk Lindebaum, Peter Fleming
{"title":"ChatGPT破坏了人类的反身性、科学责任和负责任的管理研究","authors":"Dirk Lindebaum,&nbsp;Peter Fleming","doi":"10.1111/1467-8551.12781","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>With ChatGPT being promoted to and by academics for writing scholarly articles more effectively, we ask what kind of knowledge does ChatGPT produce, what this means for our reflexivity as <i>responsible</i> management educators/researchers, and how an absence of reflexivity disqualifies us from shaping management knowledge in <i>responsible</i> ways. We urgently need to grasp what makes human knowledge distinct compared with knowledge generated by ChatGPT <i>et al.</i> Thus, we first explain how ChatGPT operates and unpack its intrinsic epistemological limitations. Using high-probability choices that are derivative, ChatGPT has <i>no stake</i> in the knowledge it produces and is thus likely prone to offering irresponsible outputs. By contrast, genuine human thinking—embodied in a contingent socio-cultural setting—uses low-probability choices both ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ the box of training data, making it creative, contextual and committed. We conclude that the use of ChatGPT is wholly incompatible with scientific responsibility and responsible management.</p>","PeriodicalId":48342,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Management","volume":"35 2","pages":"566-575"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8551.12781","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"ChatGPT Undermines Human Reflexivity, Scientific Responsibility and Responsible Management Research\",\"authors\":\"Dirk Lindebaum,&nbsp;Peter Fleming\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1467-8551.12781\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>With ChatGPT being promoted to and by academics for writing scholarly articles more effectively, we ask what kind of knowledge does ChatGPT produce, what this means for our reflexivity as <i>responsible</i> management educators/researchers, and how an absence of reflexivity disqualifies us from shaping management knowledge in <i>responsible</i> ways. We urgently need to grasp what makes human knowledge distinct compared with knowledge generated by ChatGPT <i>et al.</i> Thus, we first explain how ChatGPT operates and unpack its intrinsic epistemological limitations. Using high-probability choices that are derivative, ChatGPT has <i>no stake</i> in the knowledge it produces and is thus likely prone to offering irresponsible outputs. By contrast, genuine human thinking—embodied in a contingent socio-cultural setting—uses low-probability choices both ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ the box of training data, making it creative, contextual and committed. We conclude that the use of ChatGPT is wholly incompatible with scientific responsibility and responsible management.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48342,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of Management\",\"volume\":\"35 2\",\"pages\":\"566-575\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8551.12781\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8551.12781\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8551.12781","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

随着ChatGPT被学者们推广为更有效地撰写学术文章,我们问ChatGPT产生了什么样的知识,这对我们作为负责任的管理教育者/研究人员的反身性意味着什么,以及缺乏反身性如何使我们无法以负责任的方式塑造管理知识。我们迫切需要掌握人类知识与ChatGPT等人产生的知识的区别。因此,我们首先解释ChatGPT是如何运作的,并揭示其内在的认识论局限性。使用衍生的高概率选择,ChatGPT与它产生的知识没有利害关系,因此很可能倾向于提供不负责任的输出。相比之下,真正的人类思维——体现在偶然的社会文化环境中——在训练数据的“内部”和“外部”使用低概率选择,使其具有创造性、情境性和承诺性。我们的结论是,使用ChatGPT与科学责任和负责任的管理完全不相容。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
ChatGPT Undermines Human Reflexivity, Scientific Responsibility and Responsible Management Research

With ChatGPT being promoted to and by academics for writing scholarly articles more effectively, we ask what kind of knowledge does ChatGPT produce, what this means for our reflexivity as responsible management educators/researchers, and how an absence of reflexivity disqualifies us from shaping management knowledge in responsible ways. We urgently need to grasp what makes human knowledge distinct compared with knowledge generated by ChatGPT et al. Thus, we first explain how ChatGPT operates and unpack its intrinsic epistemological limitations. Using high-probability choices that are derivative, ChatGPT has no stake in the knowledge it produces and is thus likely prone to offering irresponsible outputs. By contrast, genuine human thinking—embodied in a contingent socio-cultural setting—uses low-probability choices both ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ the box of training data, making it creative, contextual and committed. We conclude that the use of ChatGPT is wholly incompatible with scientific responsibility and responsible management.

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
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
12.50%
发文量
87
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Management provides a valuable outlet for research and scholarship on management-orientated themes and topics. It publishes articles of a multi-disciplinary and interdisciplinary nature as well as empirical research from within traditional disciplines and managerial functions. With contributions from around the globe, the journal includes articles across the full range of business and management disciplines. A subscription to British Journal of Management includes International Journal of Management Reviews, also published on behalf of the British Academy of Management.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Discretion in the Governance Work of Internal Auditors: Interplay Between Institutional Complexity and Organizational Embeddedness Social Impact Business Angels as New Impact Investors Are Prestigious Directors Mere Attractive Ornaments on the Corporate Christmas Tree? Determinants of IPO Overpricing
×
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