Cited by 74Artificial Intelligence in EducationEthics and Social Impacts of AIArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

ChatGPT is not capable of serving as an author: ethical concerns and challenges of large language models in education

Open access
·2023·International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science

Abstract

This research delves into the dynamic role of ChatGPT and similar large language models within the realm of education.It sheds light on their set of limitations, ethical concerns, and challenges that must be addressed thoughtfully, offering a comprehensive exploration of their implications in various educational contexts and the evolving landscape of teaching, research, and scholarly communication.The paper initiates its exploration by investigating how ChatGPT can be applied in scientific writing and publishing.Furthermore, the paper critically assesses the constraints associated with utilizing ChatGPT in education.It acknowledges the model's limitations in generating authoritative content, comprehending complex subject matter, and ensuring information accuracy.These limitations, thoroughly examined, present substantial obstacles to the integration of ChatGPT into educational practices.The research also addresses the ethical dilemmas and potential pitfalls that arise from a heavy reliance on generative AI in education.It delves into issues of bias, accountability, and the dissemination of misinformation.These considerations emphasize the importance of maintaining human agency and oversight in educational settings, promoting the responsible use of AI.The paper further explores the impact of ChatGPT on academic research, both in terms of augmenting research productivity and potential risks to the rigor and authenticity of scholarly work.Strategies and tools for detecting and mitigating instances of academic misconduct involving AI-generated content are examined in detail.Additionally, the research investigates the role of ChatGPT in enhancing critical thinking skills among students, educators, and researchers.It explores the potential for innovative pedagogical methods that leverage generative AI to foster improved critical thinking.Moreover, the paper considers the implications of ChatGPT on educational policy, encompassing issues such as privacy concerns, intellectual property rights, and the necessity for regulations in the evolving landscape of AI in education.These insights are invaluable for educators, researchers, policymakers, and stakeholders seeking to harness the benefits of generative AI while navigating the associated challenges in the realm of education.

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 · 10.56726/irjmets45212

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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?

  • The privacy-protective behavior scale was developed using a multi-step process including theoretical grounding, qualitative interviews with 10 frequent GAI users, expert review by three scholars, and a pilot test (N = 102).

    “These items were developed using a multi-step process: (1) theoretical grounding from recent literature on privacy in AI (e.g., Rane et al. 2023;Wu et al. 2024), (2) qualitative interviews with 10 frequent GAI users, (3) expert review by three scholars specializing in AI and privacy, and (4) a pilot test (N = 102), after which lowperforming items were revised or removed.”

    From Bridging risk and retention: risk coping with privacy and hallucination in AI (2026) · cites this paper as Rane et al. 2023

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Lo, C. K. (2023). What is the impact of ChatGPT on education? A rapid review of the literature. Education Sciences, 13(4), 410.
  2. Whalen, J., & Mouza, C. (2023). ChatGPT: Challenges, Opportunities, and Implications for Teacher Education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 23(1), 1-23.
  3. Evans, O., Wale-Awe, O., Osuji, E., Ayoola, O., Alenoghena, R., & Adeniji, S. (2023). ChatGPT impacts on access-efficiency, employment, education and ethics: The socio-economics of an AI language model. BizEcons Quarterly, 16(1), 1-17.
  4. Rane, N. L., & Attarde, P. M. (2016). Application of value engineering in commercial building projects. International Journal of Latest Trends in Engineering and Technology, 6(3), 286-291.
  5. Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., ... & Wright, R. (2023). "So what if ChatGPT wrote it?" Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71, 102642.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Venue
International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science
Published
2023-10-12
ISSN
2582-5208 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4387576300
Cited by
74
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 8
FWCI
13.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science (publishedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
ChatGPT, large language models, generative AI in education, AI authorship, AI-generated content, academic misconduct detection, misinformation, algorithmic bias, accountability, critical thinking, AI in teaching, AI regulation in education, privacy, intellectual property

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