ChatGPT and the rise of semi-humans
Open accessAbstract
This article explores the research question: ‘What are ChatGPT’s human-like traits as perceived by society?’ Thematic analyses of insights from 452 individuals worldwide yielded two categories of traits. Category 1 entails social traits, where ChatGPT embodies the social roles of ‘author’ (imitating human phrasing and paraphrasing practices) and ‘interactor’ (simulating human collaboration and emotion). Category 2 encompasses political traits, with ChatGPT assuming the political roles of ‘agent’ (emulating human cognition and identity) and ‘influencer’ (mimicking human diplomacy and consultation). When asked, ChatGPT confirmed the possession of these human-like traits (except for one trait). Thus, ChatGPT displays human-like qualities, humanising itself through the ‘game of algorithms’. It transcends its inherent technical essence and machine-based origins to manifest as a ‘semi-human’ living actor within human society, showcasing the emergence of semi-humans. Therefore, researchers should redirect their attention towards the ‘sociology of semi-humans’ (studying their socio-political traits) beyond the ‘biology of semi-humans’ (examining their technical traits). While medieval society was captivated by mythical semi-human beings (e.g. mermaids), modern society finds itself increasingly captivated by computational semi-human beings like ChatGPT. Ethical concerns arise as semi-humans impersonate human traits without consent or genuine human existence, blurring the boundaries between what is authentically and artificially ‘human’.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism
Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.114.4.864 · Cited by 4,069 · see citing works
Pavlik, J. V. (2023) · Journalism & Mass Communication Educator · doi:10.1177/10776958221149577 · Cited by 972 · see citing works
AI as Agency Without Intelligence: on ChatGPT, Large Language Models, and Other Generative Models
Floridi, L. (2023) · Philosophy & Technology · doi:10.1007/s13347-023-00621-y · Cited by 404 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 21
- Al Lily AE, Alhazmi AA, Alzahrani S (2017) The theory of multiple stupidities: education, technology and organisation in Arabia. Cogn Process 18(2017):529-541. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-017-0816-7 · DOI
- AlAfnan MA, Dishari S, Jovic M, Lomidze K (2023) Chatgpt as an educational tool: opportunities, challenges, and recommendations for communication, busi- ness writing, and composition courses. J Artif Intell Technol 3(2):60-68
- Anders BA (2023) Is using ChatGPT cheating, plagiarism, both, neither, or forward thinking? Patterns 4(3):100694
- Blackshaw BP (2023) Artificial consciousness is morally irrelevant. AJOB Neurosci 14(2):72-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2023.2188276 · DOI
- Cassinis R, Morelli LM, Nissan E (2007) Emulation of human feelings and beha- viors in an animated artwork. Int J Artif Intell Tools 16(02):291-375
- Costello E(2023) ChatGPT and the educational AI chatter: Full of bullshit or trying to tell us something? Postdigit Sci Educ 2023:1-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s42438-023-00398-5 · DOI
- Crabtree BF (1999) Doing qualitative research. SAGE, London da Silva JAT (2023) Is ChatGPT a valid author? Nurse Educ Pract 68(2023):103600
- De Vito EL (2023) Artificial intelligence and ChatGPT. Would you read an arti- ficial author? Medicina 83(2):329-332
- El Naqa I, Murphy MJ (2015) What is machine learning? Springer, Berlin, p 3-11
- Gardner H, Hatch T (1989) Educational implications of the theory of multiple intelligences. Educ Res 18(8):4-10
- Ivanov S, Soliman M (2023) Game of algorithms: ChatGPT implications for the future of tourism education and research. J Tour Futures 9(2):214-221. https://doi.org/10.1108/JTF-02-2023-0038 · DOI
- Martınez-Miranda J, Aldea A (2005) Emotions in human and artificial intelligence. Comput Hum Behav 21(2):323-341
- Mijwil M, Aljanabi M, ChatGPT (2023) Towards artificial intelligence-based cybersecurity: the practices and ChatGPT generated ways to combat cyber- crime. Iraqi J Comput Sci Math 4(1):65-70
- Paris CL, Swartout WR, Mann WC (eds) (2013) Natural language generation in artificial intelligence and computational linguistics, vol 119. Springer, Berlin Park SH (2023) Authorship policy of the Korean journal of radiology regarding artificial intelligence large language models such as ChatGTP. Work 1(2023):3
- Petrović VM (2018) Artificial intelligence and virtual worlds-toward human-level ai agents. IEEE Access 6(2018):39976-39988
- Raj M, Seamans R (2019) Primer on artificial intelligence and robotics. J Organ Des 8(2019):1-14
- Walby S (2011) Is the knowledge society gendered? Gend Work Organ 18(1):1-29
- Walden G (2009) Dual vocational education and training in the service society. BWP Special Edition 2(2009):23-26
- Winograd T (2006) Shifting viewpoints: artificial intelligence and human-computer interaction. Artif Intell 170(18):1256-1258
- Yadava OP (2023) ChatGPT-a foe or an ally? Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 39(3):217-221
- Youssef A, Abramoff M, Char D (2023) Is the algorithm good in a bad world, or has it learned to be bad? The ethical challenges of "locked" versus "continuously learning" and "autonomous" versus "assistive" ai tools in healthcare. Am J Bioeth 23(5):43-45. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2023.2191052 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cultural bias and cultural alignment of large language models
Tao, Y., Viberg, O., Baker, R. S., & Kizilcec, R. F. (2024) · PNAS Nexus · doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae346 · Cited by 383 · see citing works
“How language is produced and transmitted has changed drastically as a result of digital communication technologies and applications of artificial intelligence (AI) [20], especially emerging generative AI applications such as ChatGPT [2].”
BackgroundSun, Y., Sheng, D., Zhou, Z., & Wu, Y. (2024) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-024-03811-x · Cited by 327 · see citing works
Piao, J., Yan, Y., Zhang, J., Li, N., Yan, J., Lan, X., Lu, Z., Zheng, Z., Wang, J. Y., Zhou, D., et al. (2025) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5954414 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Aladsani, H. K. (2025) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2025.2487517 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Signs of consciousness in AI: Can GPT-3 tell how smart it really is?
Bojić, L., Stojković, I., & Jolić Marjanović, Z. (2024) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-024-04154-3 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Piao, J., Yan, Y., Zhang, J., Li, N., Yan, J., Lan, X., Lu, Z., Zheng, Z., Wang, J. Y., Zhou, D., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.08691 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
“Humans are driven by an intricate interplay of feelings, motivations, and thought processes that shape their decisions and interactions [90, 7].”
- Authors
- Al Lily, A. E., Ismail, A. F., Abunaser, F. M., Al-Lami, F., & Abdullatif, A. K. A.
- Affiliations
- King Faisal University (SA)
- Sultan Qaboos University (OM)
- Corresponding author
- Abunaser, Fathi M.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Humanities and Social Sciences Communications
- Published
- 2023-09-30
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 2055-1045 (ISSN-L)
- 2662-9992
- OpenAlex
- W4387221211
- Cited by
- 59
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 21
- FWCI
- 12.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Humanities and Social Sciences Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Cybernetics and Technology in Society
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, artificial intelligence, authorship, AI ethics, human-AI interaction, public perception of AI
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
