ChatGPT Undermines Human Reflexivity, Scientific Responsibility and Responsible Management Research

Abstract

With ChatGPT being promoted to and by academics for writing scholarly articles more effectively, we ask what kind of knowledge does ChatGPT produce, what this means for our reflexivity asresponsiblemanagement educators/researchers, and how an absence of reflexivity disqualifies us from shaping management knowledge inresponsibleways. We urgently need to grasp what makes human knowledge distinct compared with knowledge generated by ChatGPTet al.Thus, we first explain how ChatGPT operates and unpack its intrinsic epistemological limitations. Using high‐probability choices that are derivative, ChatGPT hasno stakein the knowledge it produces and is thus likely prone to offering irresponsible outputs. By contrast, genuine human thinking—embodied in a contingent socio‐cultural setting—uses low‐probability choices both ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ the box of training data, making it creative, contextual and committed. We conclude that the use of ChatGPT is wholly incompatible with scientific responsibility and responsible management.

Ghostwriters in the machine: Openly appreciating AI tools and humans who helped us

“…As an editor, I see this as being where the real scholarly contribution lies. There is a significant difference between humangenerated texts versus AI-generated texts (see Lindebaum & Fleming, 2023). I also fear that I could become disengaged without such unique human insights that both inspire and entertain me.…”

Large Language Models and the Future of Organization Theory

“…Furthermore, even when a form of a theorizing style can be copied and can generate reasonably creative outputs to start with, many of these theorizing styles presuppose human reflexivity (Lindebaum & Fleming, 2023), the meta-representational ability of human beings to reflect on and interrogate the assumptions, biases and (consequential) privileges associated with particular styles of reasoning and knowing. ChatGPT has, as we have highlighted, no ability to reflect on, let alone question for itself, what it produces, or, for instance, its ethical implications.…”

“…So far, the debate in the field around LLMs has -perhaps unsurprisingly -been divided between critics and evangelists: those who, from a normative standpoint, are staunchly against LLMs based on what it would undermine and take away from our inherently human scholarship (e.g. Lindebaum & Fleming, 2023), and those who, convinced of its technological prowess, see its productive advantages and argue that, when adopted, it will augment, rather than undercut, human reasoning, creativity and innovation (e.g. Dwivedi et al, 2023).…”

Here, There and Everywhere: On the Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Management Research and the Peer‐Review Process

“…Regarding research with AI, academics in journals across disciplines (including JMS) are vigorously debating whether, how, and when, AI may benefit research – and at what point it might damage academic integrity (see Cotton et al., 2023; Dupps Jr, 2023; Haenlein et al., 2019; Kulkarni et al., 2023; Leonardi, 2021; Raisch and Krakowski, 2021). Questions are raised regarding to what extent AI solutions may replace human reflexivity and how far AI might undermine responsible management research (Lindebaum and Fleming, 2023; Lindebaum et al. 2023; Moser et al., 2022).…”