作为共同作者的 ChatGPT?人工智能与研究伦理

Q3 Arts and Humanities Ethics in Progress Pub Date : 2024-07-12 DOI:10.14746/eip.2024.1.8
R. Sharifzadeh
{"title":"作为共同作者的 ChatGPT?人工智能与研究伦理","authors":"R. Sharifzadeh","doi":"10.14746/eip.2024.1.8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Should ChatGPT be viewed merely as a supportive tool for writers, or does it qualify as a co-author? As ChatGPT and similar language models are likely to become more prevalent in assisting with academic writing and research, it seems that we will face with two possibilities: an increase in ghostwriting that could finally undermine the integrity of the knowledge system, or the need to theoretical preparation to recognize the role of non-human contributors. Drawing on Actor-Network Theory, this article examines the question of whether this Chatbot meets, in principle, the requirements for co-authorship. Answering this question in affirmative, it delves into philosophical discussions concerning the agency, moral agency, and moral accountability of such technological entities.","PeriodicalId":36100,"journal":{"name":"Ethics in Progress","volume":"230 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"ChatGPT as Co-Author? AI and Research Ethics\",\"authors\":\"R. Sharifzadeh\",\"doi\":\"10.14746/eip.2024.1.8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Should ChatGPT be viewed merely as a supportive tool for writers, or does it qualify as a co-author? As ChatGPT and similar language models are likely to become more prevalent in assisting with academic writing and research, it seems that we will face with two possibilities: an increase in ghostwriting that could finally undermine the integrity of the knowledge system, or the need to theoretical preparation to recognize the role of non-human contributors. Drawing on Actor-Network Theory, this article examines the question of whether this Chatbot meets, in principle, the requirements for co-authorship. Answering this question in affirmative, it delves into philosophical discussions concerning the agency, moral agency, and moral accountability of such technological entities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36100,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethics in Progress\",\"volume\":\"230 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethics in Progress\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14746/eip.2024.1.8\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics in Progress","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14746/eip.2024.1.8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

是仅仅将 ChatGPT 视为写作者的辅助工具,还是将其视为共同作者?由于 ChatGPT 和类似的语言模型在协助学术写作和研究方面可能会变得越来越普遍,我们似乎将面临两种可能性:一种是可能最终破坏知识体系完整性的幽灵写作的增加,另一种是需要在理论准备方面承认非人类贡献者的作用。本文以行为网络理论为基础,探讨了聊天机器人原则上是否符合共同作者的要求这一问题。在对这一问题做出肯定回答的同时,文章深入探讨了有关此类技术实体的代理、道德代理和道德责任的哲学讨论。
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
ChatGPT as Co-Author? AI and Research Ethics
Should ChatGPT be viewed merely as a supportive tool for writers, or does it qualify as a co-author? As ChatGPT and similar language models are likely to become more prevalent in assisting with academic writing and research, it seems that we will face with two possibilities: an increase in ghostwriting that could finally undermine the integrity of the knowledge system, or the need to theoretical preparation to recognize the role of non-human contributors. Drawing on Actor-Network Theory, this article examines the question of whether this Chatbot meets, in principle, the requirements for co-authorship. Answering this question in affirmative, it delves into philosophical discussions concerning the agency, moral agency, and moral accountability of such technological entities.
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
Ethics in Progress
Ethics in Progress Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
A Comparative Study of Middle School’s Ethical Climate in Indonesia Culture, Development and Adolescence – towards a Theory and History of Adolescence ChatGPT as Co-Author? AI and Research Ethics A Critical Analysis of Falsification as Fraud Russia’s War in Ukraine as a “War for Identity” and Appropriation of Cultural Tradition
×
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