CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 171Ethics and Social Impacts of AIArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 59 of the 59 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

ChatGPT: More Than a “Weapon of Mass Deception” Ethical Challenges and Responses from the Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HCAI) Perspective

Open access
Sison, Alejo José G., Daza, Marco Tulio, Gozalo-Brizuela, Roberto, Garrido-Merchán, Eduardo C.·2024·International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction
DOI 10.1080/10447318.2023.2225931

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article explores the ethical problems arising from the use of ChatGPT as a kind of generative AI and suggests responses based on the Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HCAI) framework. The HCAI framework is appropriate because it understands technology above all as a tool to empower, augment, and enhance human agency while referring to human wellbeing as a “grand challenge”, thus perfectly aligning itself with ethics, the science of human flourishing. Further, HCAI provides objectives, principles, procedures, and structures for reliable, safe, and trustworthy AI which we apply to our ChatGPT assessments. The main danger ChatGPT presents is the propensity to be used as a “weapon of mass deception” (WMD) and an enabler of criminal activities involving deceit. We review technical specifications to better comprehend its potentials and limitations. We then suggest both technical (watermarking, styleme, detectors, and fact-checkers) and non-technical measures (terms of use, transparency, educator considerations, HITL) to mitigate ChatGPT misuse or abuse and recommend best uses (creative writing, non-creative writing, teaching and learning). We conclude with considerations regarding the role of humans in ensuring the proper use of ChatGPT for individual and social wellbeing. This is an original manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction on June 27th, 2023, available online: https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2225931

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10447318.2023.2225931

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 56 references

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Cavoukian, A. (2009). Privacy by design, take the challenge. Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, Canadian Electronic Library. ASIN: B007Z8DS6S.
  2. Friedland, A. (2023). Meta’s powerful language models leak online, the U.S. Commerce Department opens up applications for CHIPS funds, and a PRC reorganization will impact R&D and data. Center for Security and Emerging Technology.
  3. Garrido-Merchán, E. C., Arroyo-Barrigüete, J. L., & Gozalo-Brihuela, R. (2023). Simulating HP lovecraft horror literature with the ChatGPT large language model. arXiv Preprint, arXiv:2305.03429. · arXiv
  4. Hinton G. (2022). The forward-forward algorithm: Some preliminary investigations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.13345. · arXiv
  5. Liu Y. Ott M. Goyal N. Du J. Joshi M. Chen D. Levy O. Lewis M. Zettlemoyer L. & Stoyanov V. (2019). Roberta: A robustly optimized Bert pretraining approach. arXiv Preprint arXiv:1907.11692. · arXiv
  6. Martín L. A. & Garrido-Merchán E. C. (2021). Many objective Bayesian optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.04126. · arXiv
  7. Merchán E. C. G. & Lumbreras S. (2022). On the independence between phenomenal consciousness and computational intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.02187. · arXiv
  8. Mollick, E., & Mollick, L. (2023). Why all our classes suddenly became AI classes. Harvard Business Publishing Education.
  9. 10.1093/os/9780192845290.001.0001 · DOI
  10. Van Der Linden, S. (2023). Foolproof: A psychological vaccine against fake news. University of Cambridge. ISBN 9780008466718.
  11. Zhong Q. Ding L. Liu J. Du B. & Tao D. (2023). Can ChatGPT understand too? A comparative study on ChatGPT and fine-tuned Bert. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.10198. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Sison, A. J. G., Daza, M. T., Gozalo-Brizuela, R., & Garrido-Merchán, E. C.
Affiliations
  • School of Economics and Business Administration, Institute of Data Science and Artificial Intelligence (DATAI), Universidad de Navarra
  • Universidad de Guadalajara (MX)
  • Universidad Pontificia Comillas (ES)
  • Quantitative Methods Department, Universidad Pontificia Comillas
Corresponding author
Daza, Marco Tulio
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2023-06-27
Volume
40
Issue
17
Pages
4853-4872
ISSN
  • 1044-7318 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7590
DOI
10.1080/10447318.2023.2225931
OpenAlex
W4382249028
Cited by
169
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 41 · 2025: 60 · 2024: 53 · 2023: 15
FWCI
42.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
Keywords
ChatGPT, generative AI ethics, human-centered AI, AI deception, watermarking, AI detection, fact-checking, trustworthy AI, human agency, human well-being, human-in-the-loop, artificial intelligence in education, transparency, terms of use

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