A Sociological Conversation with ChatGPT about AI Ethics, Affect and Reflexivity
Open accessAbstract
This research note is a conversation between ChatGPT and a sociologist about the use of ChatGPT in knowledge production. ChatGPT is an artificial intelligence language model, programmed to analyse vast amounts of data, recognise patterns and generate human-like conversational responses based on that analysis. The research note takes an experimental form, following the shape of a dialogue, and was generated in real time, between the author and ChatGPT. The conversation reflects on, and is a reflexive contribution to, the study of artificial intelligence from a sociology of science perspective. It draws on the notion of reflexivity and adopts an ironic, parodic form to critically respond to the emergence of artificial intelligence language models, their affective and technical qualities, and thereby comments on their potential ethical, social and political significance within the humanities.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Users may be unaware of the quality of information they receive, as AI can appear and sound humanlike, potentially misleading users into trusting the information provided without proper verification.
“A related concern is whether users are aware of the quality of information they receive, as AI can appear and sound humanlike, potentially misleading users into trusting the information provided without proper verification (Balmer 2023).”
From Fostering AI Literacy in Undergraduates: A ChatGPT Workshop Case Study (2025) · cites this paper as Balmer 2023
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Sison, A. J. G., Daza, M. T., Gozalo-Brizuela, R., & Garrido-Merchán, E. C. (2024) · International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2023.2225931 · Cited by 169 · see citing works
Ji, Y., Zhan, Z., Li, T., Zou, X., & Lyu, S. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies · doi:10.1109/tlt.2025.3554584 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Fostering AI Literacy in Undergraduates: A ChatGPT Workshop Case Study
Archambault, S. G., Murph, N. L., & Ramachandran, S. (2025) · Library Trends · doi:10.1353/lib.2025.a968491 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Balmer, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Manchester (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Balmer, Andrew
- ORCID
- Balmer, Andrew
- Venue
- Sociology
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2023-05-03
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1249-1258
- ISSN
- 0038-0385 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8684
- OpenAlex
- W4367847648
- Cited by
- 51
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 4
- FWCI
- 12.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Sociology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- 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
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, large language models, AI ethics, reflexivity, affect, sociology of science, knowledge production, irony and parody, experimental study, human-AI dialogue
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
