{"title":"人工智能时代出版物写作的多样性和标准--两难境地","authors":"Maria Kuteeva, Marta Andersson","doi":"10.1093/applin/amae025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research communities across disciplines recognize the need to diversify and decolonize knowledge. While artificial intelligence-supported large language models (LLMs) can help with access to knowledge generated in the Global North and demystify publication practices, they are still biased toward dominant norms and knowledge paradigms. LLMs lack agency, metacognition, knowledge of the local context, and understanding of how the human language works. These limitations raise doubts regarding their ability to develop the kind of rhetorical flexibility that is necessary for adapting writing to ever-changing contexts and demands. Thus, LLMs are likely to drive both language use and knowledge construction towards homogeneity and uniformity, reproducing already existing biases and structural inequalities. Since their output is based on shallow statistical associations, what these models are unable to achieve to the same extent as humans is linguistic creativity, particularly across languages, registers, and styles. This is the area where key stakeholders in academic publishing—authors, reviewers, and editors—have the upper hand, as our applied linguistics community strives to increase multilingual practices in knowledge production.","PeriodicalId":48234,"journal":{"name":"Applied Linguistics","volume":"55 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diversity and Standards in Writing for Publication in the Age of AI—Between a Rock and a Hard Place\",\"authors\":\"Maria Kuteeva, Marta Andersson\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/applin/amae025\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Research communities across disciplines recognize the need to diversify and decolonize knowledge. While artificial intelligence-supported large language models (LLMs) can help with access to knowledge generated in the Global North and demystify publication practices, they are still biased toward dominant norms and knowledge paradigms. LLMs lack agency, metacognition, knowledge of the local context, and understanding of how the human language works. These limitations raise doubts regarding their ability to develop the kind of rhetorical flexibility that is necessary for adapting writing to ever-changing contexts and demands. Thus, LLMs are likely to drive both language use and knowledge construction towards homogeneity and uniformity, reproducing already existing biases and structural inequalities. Since their output is based on shallow statistical associations, what these models are unable to achieve to the same extent as humans is linguistic creativity, particularly across languages, registers, and styles. This is the area where key stakeholders in academic publishing—authors, reviewers, and editors—have the upper hand, as our applied linguistics community strives to increase multilingual practices in knowledge production.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48234,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Linguistics\",\"volume\":\"55 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Linguistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amae025\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amae025","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Diversity and Standards in Writing for Publication in the Age of AI—Between a Rock and a Hard Place
Research communities across disciplines recognize the need to diversify and decolonize knowledge. While artificial intelligence-supported large language models (LLMs) can help with access to knowledge generated in the Global North and demystify publication practices, they are still biased toward dominant norms and knowledge paradigms. LLMs lack agency, metacognition, knowledge of the local context, and understanding of how the human language works. These limitations raise doubts regarding their ability to develop the kind of rhetorical flexibility that is necessary for adapting writing to ever-changing contexts and demands. Thus, LLMs are likely to drive both language use and knowledge construction towards homogeneity and uniformity, reproducing already existing biases and structural inequalities. Since their output is based on shallow statistical associations, what these models are unable to achieve to the same extent as humans is linguistic creativity, particularly across languages, registers, and styles. This is the area where key stakeholders in academic publishing—authors, reviewers, and editors—have the upper hand, as our applied linguistics community strives to increase multilingual practices in knowledge production.
期刊介绍:
Applied Linguistics publishes research into language with relevance to real-world problems. The journal is keen to help make connections between fields, theories, research methods, and scholarly discourses, and welcomes contributions which critically reflect on current practices in applied linguistic research. It promotes scholarly and scientific discussion of issues that unite or divide scholars in applied linguistics. It is less interested in the ad hoc solution of particular problems and more interested in the handling of problems in a principled way by reference to theoretical studies.