Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
Human‐ and <scp>AI</scp>‐based authorship: Principles and ethics
30
Zitationen
2
Autoren
2023
Jahr
Abstract
Key points The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations for authorship are the dominant guidelines that guide who, and under what circumstances, an individual can be an author of an academic paper. Large language models (LLMs) and AI, like ChatGPT, given their ability and versatility, pose a challenge to the human‐based authorship model. Several journals and publishers have already prohibited the assignment of authorship to AI, LLMs, and even ChatGPT, not recognizing them as valid authors. We debate this premise, and asked ChatGPT to opine on this issue. ChatGPT considers itself as an invalid author. We applied the CRediT criteria to AI, finding that it was definitively able to satisfy three out of the 14 criteria, but only in terms of assistance. This was validated by ChatGPT itself.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI
2019 · 8.260 Zit.
Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead
2019 · 8.116 Zit.
High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence
2018 · 7.493 Zit.
Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
2005 · 5.776 Zit.
Peeking Inside the Black-Box: A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
2018 · 5.438 Zit.