Should Artificial Intelligent Agents be Your Co-author? Arguments in Favour, Informed by ChatGPT

IF 4 Q2 BUSINESS
M. Polonsky, Jeff D. Rotman
{"title":"Should Artificial Intelligent Agents be Your Co-author? Arguments in Favour, Informed by ChatGPT","authors":"M. Polonsky, Jeff D. Rotman","doi":"10.1177/14413582231167882","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Academics have long relied on technological tools to support their research, with these tools growing in sophistication over time. As these tools have advanced, they have allowed researchers to create knowledge more effectively than could have been undertaken by humans alone. However, this paper argues that some new technologies may be moving from simple tools to being collaborators in research, with their abilities contributing not only to identifying previously unidentified relationships in the data, but also synthesising and explaining information to external audiences. Relying on existing literature and questions posed to ChatGPT, we argue that artificial intelligence tools have, or will have, the ability to meet the four conditions specified in the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations for authorship (the Vancouver Protocol), warranting these technologies to become co-authors on the advancement of academic endeavours; not just background support.","PeriodicalId":47402,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Marketing Journal","volume":"31 1","pages":"91 - 96"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"14","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australasian Marketing Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14413582231167882","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

Abstract

Academics have long relied on technological tools to support their research, with these tools growing in sophistication over time. As these tools have advanced, they have allowed researchers to create knowledge more effectively than could have been undertaken by humans alone. However, this paper argues that some new technologies may be moving from simple tools to being collaborators in research, with their abilities contributing not only to identifying previously unidentified relationships in the data, but also synthesising and explaining information to external audiences. Relying on existing literature and questions posed to ChatGPT, we argue that artificial intelligence tools have, or will have, the ability to meet the four conditions specified in the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations for authorship (the Vancouver Protocol), warranting these technologies to become co-authors on the advancement of academic endeavours; not just background support.
人工智能代理应该成为你的合著者吗?支持的论点,由ChatGPT通知
学术界长期以来一直依赖技术工具来支持他们的研究,随着时间的推移,这些工具越来越复杂。随着这些工具的发展,它们使研究人员能够比人类单独创造知识更有效地创造知识。然而,本文认为,一些新技术可能正在从简单的工具转变为研究的合作者,它们的能力不仅有助于识别数据中以前未识别的关系,而且有助于合成信息并向外部受众解释信息。根据现有文献和向ChatGPT提出的问题,我们认为人工智能工具已经或将有能力满足国际医学期刊编辑委员会(ICMJE)关于作者身份的建议(温哥华协议)中规定的四个条件,保证这些技术成为学术努力的共同作者;不仅仅是背景支持。
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
CiteScore
14.90
自引率
16.70%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: The Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ) is the official journal of the Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy (ANZMAC). It is an academic journal for the dissemination of leading studies in marketing, for researchers, students, educators, scholars, and practitioners. The objective of the AMJ is to publish articles that enrich and contribute to the advancement of the discipline and the practice of marketing. Therefore, manuscripts accepted for publication will be theoretically sound, offer significant research findings and insights, and suggest meaningful implications and recommendations. Articles reporting original empirical research should include defensible methodology and findings consistent with rigorous academic standards.
×
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