Should Artificial Intelligent Agents be Your Co-author? Arguments in Favour, Informed by ChatGPT

Abstract

Academics have long relied on technological tools to support their research, with these tools growing in sophistication over time. As these tools have advanced, they have allowed researchers to create knowledge more effectively than could have been undertaken by humans alone. However, this paper argues that some new technologies may be moving from simple tools to being collaborators in research, with their abilities contributing not only to identifying previously unidentified relationships in the data, but also synthesising and explaining information to external audiences. Relying on existing literature and questions posed to ChatGPT, we argue that artificial intelligence tools have, or will have, the ability to meet the four conditions specified in the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations for authorship (the Vancouver Protocol), warranting these technologies to become co-authors on the advancement of academic endeavours; not just background support.

Leveraging and exercising caution with ChatGPT and other generative artificial intelligence tools in environmental psychology research

“…Generative Artificial Intelligence tools can have many benefits, but some uses can reduce these benefits or even threaten the value of their research applications. Relying on ChatGPT and other language models for research ideas or a conceptual understanding may compromise originality and critical thinking, or even lead to false information and plagiarism ( Beerbaum, 2023 ; Polonsky and Rotman, 2023 ; Rahimi and Talebi Bezmin Abadi, 2023 ; Xames and Shefa, 2023 ). ChatGPT’s responses can be influenced by how prompts are formulated, such as language ambiguity, complexity level, and clarity of user’s intentions.…”

Can Artificial Intelligence Only be a Helper Writer for Science?

“…Nevertheless, the utilization of AI for extracting information also gives rise to apprehensions surrounding privacy and data security. Obtaining meaningful information frequently requires the retrieval and examination of personal and confidential data (7). In order to tackle these concerns, it is imperative to guarantee that AI technologies comply with rigorous ethical principles and privacy rules to safeguard the rights and privacy of persons.…”

Research-to-Resource: ChatGPT as a Tool in Music Education Research

“…Although the tool cannot and should not do a complete review of literature to set up an author's strategic and personal need for a given study, ChatGPT can be used to find context on studies that were missed in an initial search or to edit a proposal before it is sent for review. Polonsky and Rotman (2023) advocated that ChatGPT could be listed as a coauthor due to the tool's potential ability to acquire data, draft, revise, complete final edits, and have an accountable process, but researchers may want to understand the tool's strengths and weaknesses well before taking that step, and the best way to know the tool is to test it.…”

“…Authors (Dwivedi et al, 2023;Lund et al, 2023;Pavlik, 2023;Polonsky & Rotman, 2023;Su & Yang, 2023;Sundar & Liao, 2023;Tsang, 2023;Wen & Wang, 2023) have debated the uses of artificial intelligence tools in academic areas outside of music education, commonly citing challenges with ethics and benefits of synthesizing large amounts of information. Questions of possible information inaccuracies and concerns over student plagiarism have plagued conversations about ChatGPT; readers who are interested in an overview of these noted challenges and example solutions, such as reframing classroom practices to avoid plagiarism and discussing ethics in classes, can review the studies listed previously and other publications such as the Chronicle of Higher Education's issue addressing artificial intelligence in higher education (Goldstein, 2023).…”