不)披露的伦理:专业、非学术写作语境中的大语言模式

IF 0.2 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Erick Piller
{"title":"不)披露的伦理:专业、非学术写作语境中的大语言模式","authors":"Erick Piller","doi":"10.21659/rupkatha.v15n4.02","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article explores the ethics of co-writing with large language models such as GPT-4 in professional, non-academic writing contexts without disclosing the practice to stakeholders. It considers five ethical concepts through an analysis of a hypothetical scenario. Three of the concepts—transparency, data practices, and expanded circulation—originate in the work of Heidi McKee and James Porter. The other two, just price and risk imposition, have particular relevance for professional writers. The article ultimately proposes that these five concepts can serve as points of reference as we attempt to formulate and articulate ethical judgments about co-writing with generative AI in specific, contextually grounded instances.","PeriodicalId":43128,"journal":{"name":"Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Ethics of (Non)disclosure: Large Language Models in Professional, Nonacademic Writing Contexts\",\"authors\":\"Erick Piller\",\"doi\":\"10.21659/rupkatha.v15n4.02\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article explores the ethics of co-writing with large language models such as GPT-4 in professional, non-academic writing contexts without disclosing the practice to stakeholders. It considers five ethical concepts through an analysis of a hypothetical scenario. Three of the concepts—transparency, data practices, and expanded circulation—originate in the work of Heidi McKee and James Porter. The other two, just price and risk imposition, have particular relevance for professional writers. The article ultimately proposes that these five concepts can serve as points of reference as we attempt to formulate and articulate ethical judgments about co-writing with generative AI in specific, contextually grounded instances.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43128,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21659/rupkatha.v15n4.02\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21659/rupkatha.v15n4.02","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文探讨了在专业、非学术写作环境中,在不向利益相关者披露的情况下,与 GPT-4 等大型语言模型共同写作的伦理问题。文章通过对一个假设情景的分析,探讨了五个伦理概念。其中三个概念--透明度、数据实践和扩大流通--源于海蒂-麦基(Heidi McKee)和詹姆斯-波特(James Porter)的研究。另外两个概念,即 "公正价格 "和 "风险强加",与专业作家特别相关。文章最终提出,这五个概念可以作为参考点,帮助我们在具体的、有语境基础的情况下,尝试制定和阐述关于与人工智能生成器共同写作的伦理判断。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Ethics of (Non)disclosure: Large Language Models in Professional, Nonacademic Writing Contexts
This article explores the ethics of co-writing with large language models such as GPT-4 in professional, non-academic writing contexts without disclosing the practice to stakeholders. It considers five ethical concepts through an analysis of a hypothetical scenario. Three of the concepts—transparency, data practices, and expanded circulation—originate in the work of Heidi McKee and James Porter. The other two, just price and risk imposition, have particular relevance for professional writers. The article ultimately proposes that these five concepts can serve as points of reference as we attempt to formulate and articulate ethical judgments about co-writing with generative AI in specific, contextually grounded instances.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
129
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: “The fundamental idea for interdisciplinarity derives” as our Chief Editor Explains, “from an evolutionary necessity; namely the need to confront and interpret complex systems…An entity that is studied can no longer be analyzed in terms of an object of just single discipline, but as a contending hierarchy of components which could be studied under the rubric of multiple or variable branches of knowledge.” Following this, we encourage authors to engage themselves in interdisciplinary discussion of topics from the broad areas listed below and apply interdsiciplinary perspectives from other areas of the humanities and/or the sciences wherever applicable. We publish peer-reviewed original research papers and reviews in the interdisciplinary fields of humanities. A list, which is not exclusive, is given below for convenience. See Areas of discussion. We have firm conviction in Open Access philosophy and strongly support Open Access Initiatives. Rupkatha has signed on to the Budapest Open Access Initiative. In conformity with this, the principles of publications are primarily guided by the open nature of knowledge.
×
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