非洲背景下的 ChatGPT 和会计:扩大认识上的不公正

IF 8.3 2区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS, FINANCE
Penelope Muzanenhamo , Sean Bradley Power
{"title":"非洲背景下的 ChatGPT 和会计:扩大认识上的不公正","authors":"Penelope Muzanenhamo ,&nbsp;Sean Bradley Power","doi":"10.1016/j.cpa.2024.102735","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT are likely to amplify epistemic injustice through the lack of transparency and traceability of data sources. The unethical alienation of original knowledge producers from their intellectual products, which are repackaged by LLMs as artificial intelligence, conceals power asymmetries in the global knowledge production and dissemination system. As elaborated by Miranda <span>Fricker (2010)</span>, Western White male actors traditionally dominate knowledge production; therefore, ChatGPT and other LLMs are inclined to reproduce patriarchal perspectives as universal understandings of the World. Our commentary applies this logic to accounting practice and research in Africa, and asserts that epistemic injustice, resulting from colonization and racism, means that ontological and epistemological approaches situated in the accounting needs and experiences of African communities are missing from or poorly articulated by ChatGPT and other LLMs. If LLMs are to attain legitimacy as (ethical) sources of knowledge, regulation must be enforced to ensure transparency—as a foundation for promoting pluriversality and eliminating epistemic injustice.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48078,"journal":{"name":"Critical Perspectives on Accounting","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"ChatGPT and accounting in African contexts: Amplifying epistemic injustice\",\"authors\":\"Penelope Muzanenhamo ,&nbsp;Sean Bradley Power\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cpa.2024.102735\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT are likely to amplify epistemic injustice through the lack of transparency and traceability of data sources. The unethical alienation of original knowledge producers from their intellectual products, which are repackaged by LLMs as artificial intelligence, conceals power asymmetries in the global knowledge production and dissemination system. As elaborated by Miranda <span>Fricker (2010)</span>, Western White male actors traditionally dominate knowledge production; therefore, ChatGPT and other LLMs are inclined to reproduce patriarchal perspectives as universal understandings of the World. Our commentary applies this logic to accounting practice and research in Africa, and asserts that epistemic injustice, resulting from colonization and racism, means that ontological and epistemological approaches situated in the accounting needs and experiences of African communities are missing from or poorly articulated by ChatGPT and other LLMs. If LLMs are to attain legitimacy as (ethical) sources of knowledge, regulation must be enforced to ensure transparency—as a foundation for promoting pluriversality and eliminating epistemic injustice.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48078,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Perspectives on Accounting\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Perspectives on Accounting\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1045235424000340\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Perspectives on Accounting","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1045235424000340","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

大型语言模型(LLMs),如 ChatGPT,由于缺乏数据来源的透明度和可追溯性,很可能会扩大认识论上的不公正。原始知识生产者与其知识产品之间的不道德疏离,被 LLMs 重新包装成人工智能,掩盖了全球知识生产和传播系统中的权力不对称。正如米兰达-弗里克(Miranda Fricker)(2010)所阐述的,西方白人男性行为者传统上主导着知识生产;因此,ChatGPT 和其他 LLM 倾向于复制父权制观点,将其作为对世界的普遍理解。我们的评论将这一逻辑应用于非洲的会计实践和研究,并断言,殖民化和种族主义造成的认识论不公正意味着非洲社区的会计需求和经验中的本体论和认识论方法在 ChatGPT 和其他 LLM 中缺失或阐述不清。如果要使法律硕士获得作为(道德)知识来源的合法性,就必须加强监管,确保透明度--这是促进多元化和消除认识论不公正的基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
ChatGPT and accounting in African contexts: Amplifying epistemic injustice

Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT are likely to amplify epistemic injustice through the lack of transparency and traceability of data sources. The unethical alienation of original knowledge producers from their intellectual products, which are repackaged by LLMs as artificial intelligence, conceals power asymmetries in the global knowledge production and dissemination system. As elaborated by Miranda Fricker (2010), Western White male actors traditionally dominate knowledge production; therefore, ChatGPT and other LLMs are inclined to reproduce patriarchal perspectives as universal understandings of the World. Our commentary applies this logic to accounting practice and research in Africa, and asserts that epistemic injustice, resulting from colonization and racism, means that ontological and epistemological approaches situated in the accounting needs and experiences of African communities are missing from or poorly articulated by ChatGPT and other LLMs. If LLMs are to attain legitimacy as (ethical) sources of knowledge, regulation must be enforced to ensure transparency—as a foundation for promoting pluriversality and eliminating epistemic injustice.

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
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
7.80%
发文量
91
期刊介绍: Critical Perspectives on Accounting aims to provide a forum for the growing number of accounting researchers and practitioners who realize that conventional theory and practice is ill-suited to the challenges of the modern environment, and that accounting practices and corporate behavior are inextricably connected with many allocative, distributive, social, and ecological problems of our era. From such concerns, a new literature is emerging that seeks to reformulate corporate, social, and political activity, and the theoretical and practical means by which we apprehend and affect that activity. Research Areas Include: • Studies involving the political economy of accounting, critical accounting, radical accounting, and accounting''s implication in the exercise of power • Financial accounting''s role in the processes of international capital formation, including its impact on stock market stability and international banking activities • Management accounting''s role in organizing the labor process • The relationship between accounting and the state in various social formations • Studies of accounting''s historical role, as a means of "remembering" the subject''s social and conflictual character • The role of accounting in establishing "real" democracy at work and other domains of life • Accounting''s adjudicative function in international exchanges, such as that of the Third World debt • Antagonisms between the social and private character of accounting, such as conflicts of interest in the audit process • The identification of new constituencies for radical and critical accounting information • Accounting''s involvement in gender and class conflicts in the workplace • The interplay between accounting, social conflict, industrialization, bureaucracy, and technocracy • Reappraisals of the role of accounting as a science and technology • Critical reviews of "useful" scientific knowledge about organizations
×
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