Is it necessary to disclose the use of ChatGPT in academic writing, or should we treat it as just another tool, like a word processor or grammar checker? How can we overcome the stigma surrounding AI-assisted text generation, and would greater transparency encourage trust and innovation, or only reinforce existing biases?
https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470241313233
Should the focus remain on the quality of research, regardless of the tools used, rather than on outdated ideals of "pure" authorship?
I know that upon completion of a project many engineers nowadays produce their final reports using AI. They simply feed their forms and documentation to the AI which then suitably repackages the information without adding anything new. There is nothing wrong with that, and I can see this extended to research in STEM areas where publications have a standardized format. However, I can't see this as well suited to that scholarly work in the humanities whose content consists of the explanation and creative interplay of ideas and associated polemics.
AI and Writing
"AI is not neutral. Whose voices will the algorithms exclude or ignore? The tech industry behind LLMs and AI has seemingly endless amounts of money to spend and increasingly, political power and influence on the media. But as professors, mentors, writers, reviewers, and yes, bloggers, we have the power too. We can encourage the use of tools that assist writers’ efficiency without taking away their unique voices. We can celebrate critical thinking, welcome underrepresented scholars, and encourage thoughtful, original scholarly writing so our colleagues and students feel empowered to say no to the “rewrite with AI?” query and put their own insights into their own words..."
https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2025/01/28/guest-post-finding-your-voice-in-a-ventriloquists-world-ai-and-writing/?informz=1&nbd=&nbd_source=informz
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Esthetics
- Interpretation