Your perspective on the use of AI-generated responses in community platforms like ResearchGate is valid. While AI can provide valuable information, it might lack the personal touch and experiential insights that human responses bring. The issue of transparency about AI-generated content and its potential impact on the sense of human connection is a valid concern.

Many platforms are still navigating the integration of AI technologies into user-generated content spaces. Disclosing when an answer is AI-generated can promote transparency and help users distinguish between human and AI contributions.

It's not just a pet peeve; it reflects the ongoing conversation about finding the right balance between leveraging AI for efficiency and preserving the authenticity of human interaction. If users employ AI to generate responses in this conversation, explicitly stating so would contribute to the transparency you're seeking.

Dear Amy,

When I participate into a RG thread. I sometime prior to answer, do some search on the Web and may sometime find a paragraph interesting and may quoted it in my answer with the link. I did not yet use Chat GTP but I may as well ask a question to it and while reading the answer may find a relevant and interesting text in there that I may choose to quote for an answer on RG. I would provide the source: Chat GTP and the question I asked. This would be equivalent than my ordinary practice of quoting results from my google search. Of course if the author of the question make it clear that it does not want such quoting but only want the participants to provide answers directly from the person's personal experience, I would not do either of this quoting. But if no prohibition is mentioned then I see such quoting as positive whatever the source. The only downside of Chat GTP is that Chat GTP does not provide its source. It does not tell us where it got its information preventing us to further inquire for the source. In this sense Chat GTP by not providing its sources is not ethical and is doing what we say we should not do. We should always provide our sources since this allow the reader to futher inquire and that it is wrong to steal other ideas. While even if we provide Chat GTP as the source, the source is an unethical actors which do not provide its sources. So I think Chat GTP should not be allowed to operate since it is unethical. But it could be possible to modify it so it would become ethical. For that, it would need to be opened to reveal its source materials. So if I decided to quote a part of an answer then I could provide the real sources of this material. Right now since we cannot do this, this means that by quoting Chat GTP we participate in stealing ideas. Given this is so, I will never quote Chat GTP. I may begin using it but will systematically refrein in quoting it since it is participating in stealing ideas. It would be like going to buy a used bike from a store we know is buying stolen bikes. Nice to get a cheap used bike but not encouraging stealing bikes.

Regards,

- Louis

My view on the use of AI in research and platforms like that of RG is that AI act as the stimulator of ideas and provider of structure to debates and interactions.

I'm a strong advocate for the use of AI as a tool not a replacement of humans ingenuity. The creativity of humans, the intuitions and experiences that come to bare on the debates and research is mostly outstanding to me. However, when a debate is generated without any context or proper gearings to bring to bare the relevant issues of interest on the question raised from the preliminary, then the question must be used as prompts to stimulate the debate and redirect the discussions on that uncontextialized question posed on RG or any research community platform.

More so, it comes to me that as the debates and other forms of discussions are ongoing, unscrutinized AI generated responses that is meant to help gear a discussion makes the discussion uninteresting and boring. Thus, me think using the AI to trigger debate is in order but must be scrutinized well to reflect the entire question or the context provided by the questioner.

In fact, I cannot imagine in this era of advanced technology where basic questions are asked for debates instead of philosophically-rich questions that will make it difficult for AI tools to be used to navigate such difficulties. While, AI can be used to provide responses for basic questions, some highly crafted questions and discussions section generated on RG et al., that trigger philosophical intuitions must be asked so as to make it difficult for AI misused to be ruled out. But till non-philosophical questions keep on being asked, AI tools should be used to provide responses to all basic questions asked. Even if the entire discussion must be conducted within the AI frames so be it.

I hope my response to the discussion not be construed as AI generated.

The key point in my response has to do with the asking of philosophical questions not basic questions that can be readily answered with AI tools.

Thank you to Mohanad ali Mohammed, Louis Brassard, and George Benneh Mensah for sharing your perspectives, it is great to hear from you all. I agree that the lack of transparency, absence of citations, and inability to formulate complex nuanced responses are all cons of Ai for writing. It is an interesting tool and I think it has its uses. For myself, I'm still trying to figure out exactly what that role may be. I think some of my annoyance about Chat GPT in general comes from grading student responses where I task them with writing something in their own words and clearly they did not do so. I also greatly missed the human connection during the times when all my teaching was online, science conferences were either cancelled or online, and my lab was shut down due to COVID. I missed people. I know that any posts here on RG are put up by an actual person (even if they are copying an Ai generated answer). Still, it feels like an impersonal response to an individual's query.

Dear Amy Klocko , there is related research question with good contributions about this issue. I think that chatGPT answers at ResearchGate will stay for a while (young researchers), and we will get back to traditional discussion thereafter.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Will_ChatGPT_take_over_ResearchGate