Article: Authorship and ChatGPT: a Conservative View.
2024 Volume 37, Issue 1, Page(s) 34
Abstract: Is ChatGPT an author? Given its capacity to generate something that reads like human-written text in response to prompts, it might seem natural to ascribe authorship to ChatGPT. However, we argue that ChatGPT is not an author. ChatGPT fails to meet the ... ...
Abstract | Is ChatGPT an author? Given its capacity to generate something that reads like human-written text in response to prompts, it might seem natural to ascribe authorship to ChatGPT. However, we argue that ChatGPT is not an author. ChatGPT fails to meet the criteria of authorship because it lacks the ability to perform illocutionary speech acts such as promising or asserting, lacks the fitting mental states like knowledge, belief, or intention, and cannot take responsibility for the texts it produces. Three perspectives are compared: liberalism (which ascribes authorship to ChatGPT), conservatism (which denies ChatGPT's authorship for normative and metaphysical reasons), and moderatism (which treats ChatGPT as if it possesses authorship without committing to the existence of mental states like knowledge, belief, or intention). We conclude that conservatism provides a more nuanced understanding of authorship in AI than liberalism and moderatism, without denying the significant potential, influence, or utility of AI technologies such as ChatGPT. |
---|---|
Language | English |
Publishing date | 2024-02-26 |
Publishing country | Netherlands |
Document type | Journal Article |
ZDB-ID | 2573482-9 |
ISSN | 2210-5441 ; 2210-5433 |
ISSN (online) | 2210-5441 |
ISSN | 2210-5433 |
DOI | 10.1007/s13347-024-00715-1 |
Database | MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE |
Full text online
More links
Kategorien
Order via subito
This service is chargeable due to the Delivery terms set by subito. Orders including an article and supplementary material will be classified as separate orders. In these cases, fees will be demanded for each order.