作者身份与 ChatGPT:一种保守的观点。

Q1 Arts and Humanities
Philosophy and Technology Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-26 DOI:10.1007/s13347-024-00715-1
René van Woudenberg, Chris Ranalli, Daniel Bracker
{"title":"作者身份与 ChatGPT:一种保守的观点。","authors":"René van Woudenberg, Chris Ranalli, Daniel Bracker","doi":"10.1007/s13347-024-00715-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Is ChatGPT an author? Given its capacity to generate something that reads like human-written text in response to prompts, it might seem natural to ascribe authorship to ChatGPT. However, we argue that ChatGPT is not an author. ChatGPT fails to meet the criteria of authorship because it lacks the ability to perform illocutionary speech acts such as promising or asserting, lacks the fitting mental states like knowledge, belief, or intention, and cannot take responsibility for the texts it produces. Three perspectives are compared: liberalism (which ascribes authorship to ChatGPT), conservatism (which denies ChatGPT's authorship for normative and metaphysical reasons), and moderatism (which treats ChatGPT as if it possesses authorship without committing to the existence of mental states like knowledge, belief, or intention). We conclude that conservatism provides a more nuanced understanding of authorship in AI than liberalism and moderatism, without denying the significant potential, influence, or utility of AI technologies such as ChatGPT.</p>","PeriodicalId":39065,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy and Technology","volume":"37 1","pages":"34"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10896910/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Authorship and ChatGPT: a Conservative View.\",\"authors\":\"René van Woudenberg, Chris Ranalli, Daniel Bracker\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s13347-024-00715-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Is ChatGPT an author? Given its capacity to generate something that reads like human-written text in response to prompts, it might seem natural to ascribe authorship to ChatGPT. However, we argue that ChatGPT is not an author. ChatGPT fails to meet the criteria of authorship because it lacks the ability to perform illocutionary speech acts such as promising or asserting, lacks the fitting mental states like knowledge, belief, or intention, and cannot take responsibility for the texts it produces. Three perspectives are compared: liberalism (which ascribes authorship to ChatGPT), conservatism (which denies ChatGPT's authorship for normative and metaphysical reasons), and moderatism (which treats ChatGPT as if it possesses authorship without committing to the existence of mental states like knowledge, belief, or intention). We conclude that conservatism provides a more nuanced understanding of authorship in AI than liberalism and moderatism, without denying the significant potential, influence, or utility of AI technologies such as ChatGPT.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39065,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophy and Technology\",\"volume\":\"37 1\",\"pages\":\"34\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10896910/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophy and Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-024-00715-1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/26 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-024-00715-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

ChatGPT 是作者吗?鉴于 ChatGPT 能够根据提示生成读起来像人类撰写的文本,将作者归属于 ChatGPT 似乎很自然。然而,我们认为 ChatGPT 并不是作者。ChatGPT 不符合作者身份的标准,因为它没有能力实施诸如承诺或断言之类的言语行为,缺乏知识、信念或意图等相应的心理状态,也无法对其产生的文本负责。我们比较了三种观点:自由主义(认为 ChatGPT 拥有作者身份)、保守主义(出于规范和形而上学的原因否认 ChatGPT 的作者身份)和温和主义(将 ChatGPT 视为拥有作者身份,但不承诺存在知识、信念或意图等心理状态)。我们的结论是,与自由主义和温和主义相比,保守主义对人工智能中的作者身份提供了更细致入微的理解,同时也不否认人工智能技术(如 ChatGPT)的巨大潜力、影响或效用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Authorship and ChatGPT: a Conservative View.

Is ChatGPT an author? Given its capacity to generate something that reads like human-written text in response to prompts, it might seem natural to ascribe authorship to ChatGPT. However, we argue that ChatGPT is not an author. ChatGPT fails to meet the criteria of authorship because it lacks the ability to perform illocutionary speech acts such as promising or asserting, lacks the fitting mental states like knowledge, belief, or intention, and cannot take responsibility for the texts it produces. Three perspectives are compared: liberalism (which ascribes authorship to ChatGPT), conservatism (which denies ChatGPT's authorship for normative and metaphysical reasons), and moderatism (which treats ChatGPT as if it possesses authorship without committing to the existence of mental states like knowledge, belief, or intention). We conclude that conservatism provides a more nuanced understanding of authorship in AI than liberalism and moderatism, without denying the significant potential, influence, or utility of AI technologies such as ChatGPT.

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
Philosophy and Technology
Philosophy and Technology Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
10.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
98
×
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