The ethical implications of Chatbot developments for conservation expertise

Zarrin Tasnim Sworna, Danilo Urzedo, Andrew J Hoskins, Catherine J Robinson
{"title":"The ethical implications of Chatbot developments for conservation expertise","authors":"Zarrin Tasnim Sworna,&nbsp;Danilo Urzedo,&nbsp;Andrew J Hoskins,&nbsp;Catherine J Robinson","doi":"10.1007/s43681-024-00460-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Chatbots have emerged as a potent artificial intelligence (AI) tool for expediting expert knowledge, including evidence used for conservation research and practices. While digital technologies can support the curation and analysis of vast amounts of conservation datasets to inform best practices, AI-driven solutions raise ethical concerns around what source of evidence is used or not. This paper examines the ethical issues around sources, biases, and representation of conservation evidence formulated by chatbots. We interviewed two versions of ChatGPT, GPT-3.5-turbo and GPT-4, regarding knowledge available for ecological restoration and analysed 40,000 answers. Our results show that these chatbot developments are expanding the inclusion of diverse data sources and improving the accuracy of the responses. However, these technical developments do not necessarily imply ethical considerations in terms of fair representation and unbiased inclusion of diverse knowledge offered by different sources of expertise. While the updated model expands the descriptions ofgeographical locations and organizations, there remain limitations regarding equitable representation of different expertise and stakeholders. The updated version of GPT still relies heavily on evidence from high-income countries (88%), North American expertise (67%), and male academics (46%) with limited contributions from minority groups, such as Indigenous organizations (10%) and low-income countries (2%). In conclusion, the ethical implications within generative AI reveal the crucial requirement of human-centered negotiations to consider how knowledge practices are legitimized and embedded in the development and use of chatbots.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72137,"journal":{"name":"AI and ethics","volume":"4 4","pages":"917 - 926"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s43681-024-00460-3.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AI and ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43681-024-00460-3","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

Chatbots have emerged as a potent artificial intelligence (AI) tool for expediting expert knowledge, including evidence used for conservation research and practices. While digital technologies can support the curation and analysis of vast amounts of conservation datasets to inform best practices, AI-driven solutions raise ethical concerns around what source of evidence is used or not. This paper examines the ethical issues around sources, biases, and representation of conservation evidence formulated by chatbots. We interviewed two versions of ChatGPT, GPT-3.5-turbo and GPT-4, regarding knowledge available for ecological restoration and analysed 40,000 answers. Our results show that these chatbot developments are expanding the inclusion of diverse data sources and improving the accuracy of the responses. However, these technical developments do not necessarily imply ethical considerations in terms of fair representation and unbiased inclusion of diverse knowledge offered by different sources of expertise. While the updated model expands the descriptions ofgeographical locations and organizations, there remain limitations regarding equitable representation of different expertise and stakeholders. The updated version of GPT still relies heavily on evidence from high-income countries (88%), North American expertise (67%), and male academics (46%) with limited contributions from minority groups, such as Indigenous organizations (10%) and low-income countries (2%). In conclusion, the ethical implications within generative AI reveal the crucial requirement of human-centered negotiations to consider how knowledge practices are legitimized and embedded in the development and use of chatbots.

开发聊天机器人对保护专业知识的伦理影响
聊天机器人已成为一种有效的人工智能(AI)工具,可加快专家知识(包括用于保护研究和实践的证据)的传播。虽然数字技术可以支持海量保护数据集的整理和分析,为最佳实践提供信息,但人工智能驱动的解决方案也引发了有关使用或不使用证据来源的伦理问题。本文探讨了由聊天机器人制定的保护证据的来源、偏差和代表性等方面的伦理问题。我们对两个版本的 ChatGPT(GPT-3.5-turbo 和 GPT-4)进行了访谈,内容涉及可用于生态恢复的知识,并对 40,000 个答案进行了分析。我们的结果表明,这些聊天机器人的发展扩大了不同数据源的包容性,并提高了回答的准确性。然而,这些技术发展并不一定意味着在公平代表和不偏不倚地纳入不同专业知识来源所提供的各种知识方面的道德考虑。虽然更新版模型扩大了对地理位置和组织的描述,但在公平代表不同专业知识和利益相关者方面仍存在局限性。更新版 GPT 仍然严重依赖来自高收入国家(88%)、北美专家(67%)和男性学者 (46%)的证据,而来自少数群体的证据有限,如土著组织(10%)和低收入国家 (2%)。总之,生成式人工智能的伦理影响揭示了以人为本的谈判的关键要求,即考虑知识实践如何合法化并嵌入聊天机器人的开发和使用中。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信