Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 18

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Balancing ChatGPT and Data Protection in Germany: Challenges and Opportunities for Policy Makers

Leboukh, Fouad, Baba Aduku, Emmanuel, Ali, Omar·2023·Journal of Politics and Ethics in New Technologies and AI

Abstract

In the last few months there has been widespread discussion about the remarkable progress made in the field of artificial intelligence, specifically large language models such as "ChatGPT". The ethical implications of AI, particularly concerning data protection, have sparked discussions on the necessity of robust regulations. This article examines the intersection of data protection, ChatGPT, and the ethics of AI, it explores Germany's ongoing efforts to strike a balance between harnessing the potential of large language models as ChatGPT and ensuring responsible and transparent use of AI technology in the policy-making realm. The GDPR serves as a guiding framework, necessitating careful consideration of privacy rights and secure handling of personal data when deploying ChatGPT in Germany's policy-making processes. The study draws on analysis on the current laws and regulations of data protection in Germany while studying Germany's commitment to safeguarding personal information through the active presence of The German Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information. The first section provides a context and presents the policy problem. The second section looks at the available policy options on the role of policymaking in establishing comprehensive regulations regarding the use of ChatGPT and generative AI. The third section provides recommendations on how Germany can ensure the responsible management of ChatGPT, through strengthening data protection laws and regulations, simultaneously, restricting ChatGPT usage to private users and government, also, embracing appropriate usage of generative AI while developing ethical guidelines and best practices to harness its benefits, fostering innovation and advancement.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.12681/jpentai.35166

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Image 1
CC-BY · From the PDF
Image 2
CC-BY · From the PDF

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 10 references

Cited by

See all 18

Metadata

Authors
Leboukh, F., Baba Aduku, E., & Ali, O.
Venue
Journal of Politics and Ethics in New Technologies and AI
Published
2023-08-04
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
e35166
ISSN
2944-9243
Cited by
18
References
10

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Balancing ChatGPT and Data Protection in Germany: Challenges and Opportunities for Policy Makers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.12681/jpentai.35166
The paper
Leboukh, F., Baba Aduku, E., & Ali, O. (2023). Balancing ChatGPT and Data Protection in Germany: Challenges and Opportunities for Policy Makers. Journal of Politics and Ethics in New Technologies and AI. https://doi.org/10.12681/jpentai.35166

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.