In my experience ChatGPT and other generative-AIs are transformative tools that do things other qualitative data analysis programs cannot. In particular, their ability to both summarize data sets and then carry on extended conversations are unique advantages. By comparison, programs like NVivo and EndNote simply automate things that were already done manually.

No, it is potential but not yet. There has been a trend to use ChatGPT and other generative AI in academic research but a set of concerns regarding replicability, data security, data ownership and right, biases etc. at the moment, pls consult with policies of your institution, the journal you target, and ethics review boards.

In my opinion (frustration), ChatGPT, like NVivo, EndNote, and similar tools, is undoubtedly part of the modern academic toolkit. However, its capabilities represent a significant evolution in how we interact with technology. While tools like NVivo and EndNote are rule-dependent systems designed to aid specific academic tasks (e.g., qualitative analysis or reference management), ChatGPT is built upon language processing models capable of developing dynamic rules and logic paths. These paths are both prompt-driven and modifiable by data learned during training. It is not reasoning; rather, it excels at comparing, contrasting, and constructing responses by minimizing resistance to new inputs and synthesizing existing data.

A Comparison of Precursor Tools and AI Models

These examples and distinctions make AI tools unique but not independent creators. Instead, they remain highly advanced instruments within the academic arsenal.

AI as a Tool, Not an Author

My argument is that, AI should always be considered a tool—not an independent creator—aligning with the principle that creative works are fundamentally human. Tools like ChatGPT enhance productivity, creativity, and knowledge construction but do not originate ideas, emotions, or personal insights. For instance:

• The book you write using AI remains yours because the originality stems from your intent, creativity, and unique vision.
• Similarly, a painting assisted by AI reflects the choices, themes, and artistry of the human creator, not the tool.

Attempts to credit AI with patents or copyrights risk conflating tools with creators. AI lacks the capacity for intent, moral reasoning, or subjective experience—qualities essential for authorship. Granting AI ownership over its outputs not only undermines the human creator but also sets a precedent for relinquishing accountability and ownership in creative and academic endeavors.

Plus my "pet peeve". it opens the predatory jaws of some of our corporate monsters out there to pounce on unsuspwcting young engineers, 'using all kinds of tricky contracts" to steal their intellectual creations. This is sad I have arrows in my bak to prove it :)

The Role of Education and Creativity

I also think the rise of AI exposes significant weaknesses in education systems' stagnation, emphasizing the need for:

Instead of legislating against AI, we should legislate for adaptive education systems. Laws and policies should evolve to reflect the reality of technological growth while fostering human creativity and intellectual independence.

Conclusion

AI, including ChatGPT, represents a transformative leap in tool-making rather than authorship. It serves as a mirror to humanity’s ingenuity, revealing weaknesses in how we learn, create, and govern. By recognizing AI as a tool and not a creator, society can leverage its capabilities to elevate human potential, creativity, and learning. Therefore, it is worth repeating, the real challenge lies not in legislating AI, but in reforming the systems—educational, legal, and societal—that govern its use and development.