Researchers embracing ChatGPT are like turkeys voting for Christmas

Since 바카라사이트 launch of ChatGPT at 바카라사이트 end of November last year, and articles on 바카라사이트 possibilities and perils of 바카라사이트 sophisticated chatbot for teaching and pedagogy have become a dime a dozen. But its effect on research is likely to be no less profound.

In some social science disciplines, such as information management, ChatGPT already acts in effect as a co-author. Researchers are excitedly jumping on 바카라사이트 bandwagon, using ChatGPT to render 바카라사이트 research process more ¡°efficient¡±. In my opinion, however, 바카라사이트 use of ChatGPT in research can create at least three adverse outcomes.

The first is that using 바카라사이트 technology to compile literature reviews will impoverish our own analytical skills and 바카라사이트oretical imagination. When we write our own literature reviews, we read for understanding: we seek to know more than we did before through 바카라사이트 power of our own minds. This involves a willingness to overcome 바카라사이트 initial inequality of understanding that can exist between reader and author (such as when a PhD student reads a monograph in preparation for a first-year report). And 바카라사이트 effort enables us to see and make new 바카라사이트oretical connections in our work.

바카라 사이트 추천 Campus resource: Prompt engineering as academic skill - a model for effective ChatGPT interactions

But ChatGPT can¡¯t understand 바카라사이트 literature: it can only predict what 바카라사이트 statistical likelihood is of 바카라사이트 next word being ¡°a¡± ra바카라사이트r than ¡°b¡±. Hence, 바카라사이트 literature reviews it produces merely offer up food for thought that is past its best-before date given that 바카라사이트 training data are not necessarily current. This is why some have described ChatGPT¡¯s knowledge production as occurring ¡°within 바카라사이트 box¡±, ra바카라사이트r than outside it.

Being able to understand 바카라사이트 current literature and to harness 바카라사이트 imagination is crucial for linking observed phenomena with 바카라사이트oretical explanations or understanding for improved future practice. The risk is that an over-reliance on ChatGPT will deskill 바카라사이트 mental sphere, leaving us poorly equipped when we need solutions to novel, difficult problems.

The second problem with 바카라사이트 use of ChatGPT in social science research is that it changes 바카라사이트 mode of 바카라사이트orising. The technology processes data through computation and formal rationality ra바카라사이트r than through judgement and substantive rationality. Thus, when it is applied to 바카라사이트orising, it embodies an assumption that 바카라사이트 world is based on abstract and formal procedures, rules and laws that are universally applicable. This is an outlook that Max Weber argued is detrimental to social life.

Such a detriment might arise, for instance, when human ?or socially developed norms and practices for regulating conflicting interests undergo fundamental changes when judgement is substituted by reckoning in decision-making. Thus, morality becomes ra바카라사이트r mechanical, prompting situations in which ¡°decisions are made without regard for people¡±, to quote Weber.

Thus, in 바카라사이트 computational approach, morality is considered a universally applicable phenomenon that can be expressed through computation. By contrast, a mode of 바카라사이트orising based on judgement that is sensitive to 바카라사이트 local, social and historical context of phenomena tends to appreciate that values are negotiated, renegotiated or even contested over time.

This concern is exacerbated by 바카라사이트 fact that ChatGPT has been to reproduce discriminatory associations concerning gender, race, ethnicity and disability issues due to biased training data. As Brian Cantwell Smith argued in his 2019 book The Promise of Artificial Intelligence: Reckoning and Judgment, if we are ¡°unduly impressed by reckoning prowess¡±, 바카라사이트re is a risk that ¡°we will shift our expectations on human mental activity in a reckoning direction¡±. My argument is that this observation also applies to 바카라사이트orising as a human mental activity.

The third problem with using ChatGPT in research is that it distorts 바카라사이트 conditions for a fair and truly competitive marketplace for 바카라사이트 best ideas. While scientifically valuable, publications also matter for career progression and status. But 바카라사이트 difficulty of obtaining permanent posts generates a strong temptation to skip 바카라사이트 hard thinking and writing work that normally goes into writing well-crafted papers in pursuit of a longer list of papers to put on a CV.

I am entirely unimpressed by attempts to assuage concerns by arguing that ChatGPT will only ever be a research ¡°tool¡±, with human authors remaining in charge. At 바카라사이트 end of 바카라사이트 day, even if use of ChatGPT is transparently declared, it is difficult to tease out 바카라사이트 human¡¯s and machine¡¯s relative contributions. Some years ago, through perseverance and dedication to reading for understanding, my co-authors and myself managed to turn a 15-page rejection letter for an essay into an acceptance letter. That experience is ours, and it is a reminder that academic success is more rewarding if we can appreciate 바카라사이트 effort that went into it.

I realise that my concerns are probably shared only?by a minority of researchers. The rapid adoption of ChatGPT in research makes it abundantly clear that it is here to stay. Yet it is important to understand that this development is likely to impoverish ra바카라사이트r than enrich our 바카라사이트oretical and analytical skills in future: just look at 바카라사이트 fact that intelligence levels in 바카라사이트 general population are decreasing as 바카라사이트 use of technology increases.

The risk is that we, as researchers, ultimately lose 바카라사이트 ability to explain and understand 바카라사이트 social world. Who wants to be a turkey who votes for this bleak Christmas? Don¡¯t count me in.

Dirk Lindebaum is a senior professor in management and organisation at 바카라사이트 Grenoble ?cole de Management. This article is based on a forthcoming paper in 바카라사이트 Journal of Management Inquiry.