对学术论文中人工智能工具合著的担忧

IF 0.3 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Emrah Yildiz
{"title":"对学术论文中人工智能工具合著的担忧","authors":"Emrah Yildiz","doi":"10.58600/eurjther1836","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Dear Editors\nWith great attention and interest, I read the editors’ short brief yet thought-provoking editorials [1,2] and it has helped me combine valuable information with my research and experiences. Today, artificial intelligence has become an application that we can use in all areas of our lives, being versatile, and able to analyze, collect and interpret. Writing ChatGPT that we can barely bring together for weeks or even months of work, and other AI applications can be used in minutes or even. We seconds can see that it produces original writings and offers a wide range of information. It is obvious that the time-saving experience provided by artificial intelligence provides convenience in most areas of our lives. But that's human researchers and artificial intelligence it may cause us to not understand some points about certain differences between the two. For example, when we look at the difference between an article written with artificial intelligence and an article written with human intelligence, it is undoubtedly almost understandable at first glance impossible.\nBecause of life's developing and changing conditions, no field wanted to be left behind and turned to itself to build its essence, one of which is undoubtedly artificial Intelligence. With the rapid progression of the COVID-19 pandemic and swiftly evolving political decisions, technology has become exceedingly practical and adaptive, undergoing continuous transformation.\nMany research studies have begun to be conducted around the world, with the need for individuals to conduct faster and more extensive research to bring together new and diverse resources.\nWhile the utilization of artificial intelligence (AI) appears as one of the most promising options for this purpose, we must inquire whether its inclusion as a co-author adheres to ethical and technical standards or if it occasionally neglects these principles.\nIn my opinion, involving AI tools like ChatGPT as a co-author can potentially lead to ethical complexities, especially in terms of responsibility and accountability.\nLanguage models powered by artificial intelligence lack consciousness, autonomy, and the ability to claim ownership of their contributions. Ascribing authorship to these models blurs lines of responsibility and weakens the ethical obligations inherent in scholarly authorship. Simultaneously, the essence of scholarly authorship lies in the generation of hypotheses, experimentation, data analysis, and interpretation, attributes ascribed to individuals who actively contribute. In this context, even though ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence models expeditiously furnish us with desired information through rapid interactions, it is fundamentally derived from existing human input sources. In essence, these AI systems do not so much transform or recreate a wellspring of knowledge as they present it in its preexisting state. Introducing ChatGPT as a co-author could evoke the assumption of its active engagement, potentially blurring the distinction between the assistance offered by researchers and that by the AI, rendering it challenging for observers to distinctly discern their respective contributions.\nConsequently, artificial intelligence's contributions, evident when examining scientific articles and many other sources we seek, are undeniably substantial. While the knowledge it presents may introduce entirely novel perspectives, rather than accrediting artificial intelligence as an author, we should confine its recognition to the acknowledgment section solely for its contributions. This approach allows us to acknowledge the collaborative efforts of both human and artificial intelligence, upholding transparency while respecting and adhering to traditional authorship norms.\nYours sincerely,","PeriodicalId":42642,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Therapeutics","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Concerns About Co-Authoring AI Tools in Academic Papers\",\"authors\":\"Emrah Yildiz\",\"doi\":\"10.58600/eurjther1836\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Dear Editors\\nWith great attention and interest, I read the editors’ short brief yet thought-provoking editorials [1,2] and it has helped me combine valuable information with my research and experiences. Today, artificial intelligence has become an application that we can use in all areas of our lives, being versatile, and able to analyze, collect and interpret. Writing ChatGPT that we can barely bring together for weeks or even months of work, and other AI applications can be used in minutes or even. We seconds can see that it produces original writings and offers a wide range of information. It is obvious that the time-saving experience provided by artificial intelligence provides convenience in most areas of our lives. But that's human researchers and artificial intelligence it may cause us to not understand some points about certain differences between the two. For example, when we look at the difference between an article written with artificial intelligence and an article written with human intelligence, it is undoubtedly almost understandable at first glance impossible.\\nBecause of life's developing and changing conditions, no field wanted to be left behind and turned to itself to build its essence, one of which is undoubtedly artificial Intelligence. With the rapid progression of the COVID-19 pandemic and swiftly evolving political decisions, technology has become exceedingly practical and adaptive, undergoing continuous transformation.\\nMany research studies have begun to be conducted around the world, with the need for individuals to conduct faster and more extensive research to bring together new and diverse resources.\\nWhile the utilization of artificial intelligence (AI) appears as one of the most promising options for this purpose, we must inquire whether its inclusion as a co-author adheres to ethical and technical standards or if it occasionally neglects these principles.\\nIn my opinion, involving AI tools like ChatGPT as a co-author can potentially lead to ethical complexities, especially in terms of responsibility and accountability.\\nLanguage models powered by artificial intelligence lack consciousness, autonomy, and the ability to claim ownership of their contributions. Ascribing authorship to these models blurs lines of responsibility and weakens the ethical obligations inherent in scholarly authorship. Simultaneously, the essence of scholarly authorship lies in the generation of hypotheses, experimentation, data analysis, and interpretation, attributes ascribed to individuals who actively contribute. In this context, even though ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence models expeditiously furnish us with desired information through rapid interactions, it is fundamentally derived from existing human input sources. In essence, these AI systems do not so much transform or recreate a wellspring of knowledge as they present it in its preexisting state. Introducing ChatGPT as a co-author could evoke the assumption of its active engagement, potentially blurring the distinction between the assistance offered by researchers and that by the AI, rendering it challenging for observers to distinctly discern their respective contributions.\\nConsequently, artificial intelligence's contributions, evident when examining scientific articles and many other sources we seek, are undeniably substantial. While the knowledge it presents may introduce entirely novel perspectives, rather than accrediting artificial intelligence as an author, we should confine its recognition to the acknowledgment section solely for its contributions. This approach allows us to acknowledge the collaborative efforts of both human and artificial intelligence, upholding transparency while respecting and adhering to traditional authorship norms.\\nYours sincerely,\",\"PeriodicalId\":42642,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Therapeutics\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Therapeutics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.58600/eurjther1836\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.58600/eurjther1836","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

亲爱的编辑们:我怀着极大的兴趣和注意力阅读了编辑们简短但发人深省的社论[1,2],它帮助我将有价值的信息与我的研究和经验结合起来。今天,人工智能已经成为我们可以在生活的各个领域使用的应用程序,它是多功能的,能够分析、收集和解释。编写ChatGPT,我们几乎可以把几个星期甚至几个月的工作放在一起,而其他人工智能应用程序可以在几分钟甚至几分钟内使用。我们可以看到,它产生了原创作品,并提供了广泛的信息。很明显,人工智能提供的节省时间的体验为我们生活的大多数领域提供了便利。但这是人类研究人员和人工智能,这可能会导致我们不理解两者之间的某些差异。例如,当我们看一篇用人工智能写的文章和一篇用人类智能写的文章之间的区别时,毫无疑问,乍一看几乎是可以理解的。由于生命的发展和变化的条件,没有一个领域愿意被抛在后面,而转向自身来构建其本质,其中之一无疑是人工智能。随着2019冠状病毒病大流行的迅速发展和政治决策的迅速演变,技术变得非常实用和适应性强,正在不断变革。许多研究已经开始在世界各地进行,需要个人进行更快,更广泛的研究,以汇集新的和多样化的资源。虽然利用人工智能(AI)似乎是实现这一目标的最有希望的选择之一,但我们必须询问将其作为共同作者是否符合道德和技术标准,或者是否偶尔会忽略这些原则。在我看来,让像ChatGPT这样的人工智能工具作为合著者可能会导致道德上的复杂性,尤其是在责任和问责方面。由人工智能驱动的语言模型缺乏意识、自主性和对其贡献的所有权要求的能力。将作者身份归因于这些模型模糊了责任界限,削弱了学术作者固有的伦理义务。与此同时,学术作者身份的本质在于产生假设、实验、数据分析和解释,这些属性归因于积极贡献的个人。在这种情况下,尽管ChatGPT和其他人工智能模型通过快速交互迅速地为我们提供了所需的信息,但它基本上是从现有的人工输入来源中衍生出来的。从本质上讲,这些人工智能系统并没有改变或重建知识的源泉,因为它们是以预先存在的状态呈现知识。将ChatGPT作为共同作者引入研究,可能会引发对其积极参与的假设,这可能会模糊研究人员提供的帮助和人工智能提供的帮助之间的区别,使观察者很难清楚地辨别他们各自的贡献。因此,在研究科学文章和我们寻找的许多其他来源时,人工智能的贡献是显而易见的,这是不可否认的。虽然它所呈现的知识可能会引入全新的视角,但我们不应将人工智能视为作者,而应将其认可仅限于对其贡献的认可部分。这种方法允许我们承认人类和人工智能的合作努力,在尊重和坚持传统作者规范的同时维护透明度。你的真诚,
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Concerns About Co-Authoring AI Tools in Academic Papers
Dear Editors With great attention and interest, I read the editors’ short brief yet thought-provoking editorials [1,2] and it has helped me combine valuable information with my research and experiences. Today, artificial intelligence has become an application that we can use in all areas of our lives, being versatile, and able to analyze, collect and interpret. Writing ChatGPT that we can barely bring together for weeks or even months of work, and other AI applications can be used in minutes or even. We seconds can see that it produces original writings and offers a wide range of information. It is obvious that the time-saving experience provided by artificial intelligence provides convenience in most areas of our lives. But that's human researchers and artificial intelligence it may cause us to not understand some points about certain differences between the two. For example, when we look at the difference between an article written with artificial intelligence and an article written with human intelligence, it is undoubtedly almost understandable at first glance impossible. Because of life's developing and changing conditions, no field wanted to be left behind and turned to itself to build its essence, one of which is undoubtedly artificial Intelligence. With the rapid progression of the COVID-19 pandemic and swiftly evolving political decisions, technology has become exceedingly practical and adaptive, undergoing continuous transformation. Many research studies have begun to be conducted around the world, with the need for individuals to conduct faster and more extensive research to bring together new and diverse resources. While the utilization of artificial intelligence (AI) appears as one of the most promising options for this purpose, we must inquire whether its inclusion as a co-author adheres to ethical and technical standards or if it occasionally neglects these principles. In my opinion, involving AI tools like ChatGPT as a co-author can potentially lead to ethical complexities, especially in terms of responsibility and accountability. Language models powered by artificial intelligence lack consciousness, autonomy, and the ability to claim ownership of their contributions. Ascribing authorship to these models blurs lines of responsibility and weakens the ethical obligations inherent in scholarly authorship. Simultaneously, the essence of scholarly authorship lies in the generation of hypotheses, experimentation, data analysis, and interpretation, attributes ascribed to individuals who actively contribute. In this context, even though ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence models expeditiously furnish us with desired information through rapid interactions, it is fundamentally derived from existing human input sources. In essence, these AI systems do not so much transform or recreate a wellspring of knowledge as they present it in its preexisting state. Introducing ChatGPT as a co-author could evoke the assumption of its active engagement, potentially blurring the distinction between the assistance offered by researchers and that by the AI, rendering it challenging for observers to distinctly discern their respective contributions. Consequently, artificial intelligence's contributions, evident when examining scientific articles and many other sources we seek, are undeniably substantial. While the knowledge it presents may introduce entirely novel perspectives, rather than accrediting artificial intelligence as an author, we should confine its recognition to the acknowledgment section solely for its contributions. This approach allows us to acknowledge the collaborative efforts of both human and artificial intelligence, upholding transparency while respecting and adhering to traditional authorship norms. Yours sincerely,
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
European Journal of Therapeutics
European Journal of Therapeutics MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
48
×
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