Judgments of research co-created by generative AI: experimental evidence

Pawe{\l} Niszczota and Paul Conway

Papers from arXiv.org

Abstract: The introduction of ChatGPT has fuelled a public debate on the use of generative AI (large language models; LLMs), including its use by researchers. In the current work, we test whether delegating parts of the research process to LLMs leads people to distrust and devalue researchers and scientific output. Participants (N=402) considered a researcher who delegates elements of the research process to a PhD student or LLM, and rated (1) moral acceptability, (2) trust in the scientist to oversee future projects, and (3) the accuracy and quality of the output. People judged delegating to an LLM as less acceptable than delegating to a human (d = -0.78). Delegation to an LLM also decreased trust to oversee future research projects (d = -0.80), and people thought the results would be less accurate and of lower quality (d = -0.85). We discuss how this devaluation might transfer into the underreporting of generative AI use.

Date: 2023-05
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-ain, nep-exp and nep-mfd
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.11873 Latest version (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:arx:papers:2305.11873

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Papers from arXiv.org
Bibliographic data for series maintained by arXiv administrators ().