Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

To Find the “Rotten Apple” – Information Ethical Requirements for the Information Literacy of Autonomous Writing Engines

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Information Experience and Information Literacy (ECIL 2023)

Part of the book series: Communications in Computer and Information Science ((CCIS,volume 2043))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 176 Accesses

Abstract

Since the availability of ChatGPT, there has been a heated debate about what conclusions should be drawn from this automated text generation. This paper: There is an ethical claim that the authors vouch for the quality of their sources. The realization of this claim is tied to explicit competence, in this case, information literacy. However, when using autonomous writing programs, this competence is shared: The user leaves the source responsibility to the AI. This delegation can only succeed when the machine itself has information competence. This point has ethical implications for the use and development of such technology. If the adage “one bad apple spoils the whole barrel” is true, then the ability to distinguish good apples from bad is a core information literacy skill. This paper discusses what information ethics requirements must be placed on the programming and use of autonomous writing programs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Baidoo-Anu, D., Owusu Ansah, L.: Education in the Era of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI): Understanding the Potential Benefits of ChatGPT in Promoting Teaching and Learning (2023). https://ssrn.com/abstract=4337484

  2. Mattas, P.S.: ChatGPT: a study of AI language processing and its implications. Int. J. Res. Publ. Rev. 4(2), 435–440 (2023)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Zhuo, T.Y., Huang, Y., Chen, C., Xing, Z.: Red teaming ChatGPT via Jailbreaking: Bias, Robustness, Reliability and Toxicity (2023). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2301.12867

  4. Lund B.D., Wang, T.: Chatting about ChatGPT: How May AI and GPT Impact Academia and Libraries? Library Hi Tech News (2023). https://doi.org/10.1108/LHTN-01-2023-0009

  5. Krügel, S., Ostermaier, A., Uhl, M.: The Moral Authority of ChatGPT (2023). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2301.07098

  6. Bruneault, F., Laflamme, A.S.: AI Ethics: how can information ethics provide a framework to avoid usual conceptual pitfalls? Overview AI Soc. 36, 757–766 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Raunak, V., Menezes, A., Junczys-Dowmunt, M.: The Curious Case of Hallucinations in Neural Machine Translation. CoRR abs/2104.06683 (2021). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2104.06683

  8. Hintze, A.: Understanding the Four Types of AI, from Reactive Robots to Self-Aware Beings. The Conversation (2016). https://theconversation.com/understanding-the-four-types-of-ai-from-reactive-robots-to-self-aware-beings-67616

  9. Kreis, M.: Leben, Arbeit, Bildung 2035+. Durch Künstliche Intelligenz beeinflusste Veränderungen in zentralen Lebensbereichen [Life, Work, Education 2035+. Changes in Key Areas of Life Influenced by Artificial Intelligence] (Zukunftsstudie Münchner Kreis [Future Study Munich Group], vol. VIII). Munich (2020). https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/de/publikationen/publikation/did/zukunftsstudie-leben-arbeit-bildung-2035

  10. Turing, A.M.: Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind 59, 433–460 (1950)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Mollick, E.: AI Is Not Good Software. It Is Pretty Good People. A Pragmatic Approach to Thinking about AI. One Useful Thing (2023). https://www.oneusefulthing.org/p/ai-is-not-good-software-it-is-pretty

  12. Jobin, A., Ienca, M., Vayena, E.: Artificial intelligence: the global landscape of ethics guidelines. Nat. Mach. Intell. 1, 389–399 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Felzmann, H., Villaronga, E.F., Lutz, C., Tamò-Larrieux, A.: Transparency you can trust: transparency requirements for artificial intelligence between legal norms and contextual concerns. Big Data Soc. 6(1), 1–14 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951719860542

  14. Courtenage, S.: Intelligent Machines, Collectives, and Moral Responsibility. AI Ethics (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-023-00285-6

  15. Habermas, J.: The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Habermas, J.: Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Bd. I: Handlungsrationalität und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung [The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. I: Reason and the Rationalization of Society]. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt (1981)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Rath, M.O.: Authentizität als Eigensein und Konstruktion – Überlegungen zur Wahrhaftigkeit in der computervermittelten Kommunikation [Authenticity as Selfhood and Construction – Reflections on Sincerity in Computer-Mediated Communication]. In: Emmer, M., Filipović, A., Schmidt, J.-H., Stapf, I. (eds.) Echtheit, Wahrheit, Ehrlichkeit. Authentizität in der Online-Kommunikation [Realness, Truth, Honesty. Authenticity in Online Communication], pp. 16–27. Juventa, Munich (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Weinert, F. E.: Concept of Competence: A Conceptual Clarification. In: Rychen, D.S., Salganik, L.H. (eds.) Defining and Selecting Key Competencies, pp. 45–65. Hogrefe & Huber Publishers, Cambridge MA. (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Rath, M.O.: Ethik der mediatisierten Welt. Grundlagen und Perspektiven [Ethics of the Mediatized World. Fundaments and Perspectives]. VS, Wiesbaden (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Pavlik, J.V.: Collaborating with ChatGPT: considering the implications of generative artificial intelligence for journalism and media education. J. Mass Commun. Educ. 78(1), 84–93 (2023)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Walmsley, J.: Artificial intelligence and the value of transparency. AI Soc. 36(2), 585–595 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-01066-z

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. de Haan, Y., van den Berg, E., Goutier, N., Kruikemeier, S., Lecheler, S.: Invisible Friend or Foe? how journalists use and perceive algorithmic-driven tools in their research process. Digit. J. 10, 1775–1793 (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Dastin, J.: Amazon Scraps Secret AI Recruiting Tool that Showed Bias against Women. Reuters (2018). https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-jobs-automation-insight-idUSKCN1MK08G

  24. Victor, D.: Microsoft Created a Twitter Bot to Learn from Users. It Quickly Became a Racist Jerk. New York Times (2016). https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/25/technology/microsoft-created-a-twitter-bot-to-learn-from-users-it-quickly-became-a-racist-jerk.html?smid=url-share

  25. Zemčík, T.: Failure of chatbot tay was evil, ugliness and uselessness in its nature or do we judge it through cognitive shortcuts and biases? AI Soc. 36, 361–367 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Wolf, M.J., Miller, K., Grodzinsky, F.S.: Why we should have seen that coming: comments on microsoft’s Tay “Experiment”, and wider implications. ACM SIGCAS Comput. Soc. 47(325), 54–64 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Marks, J.: Why be Against Darwin? creationism, racism, and the roots of anthropology. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 149(Suppl 55), 95–104 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ludwigsburg University of Education, Ludwigsburg, Germany

    Matthias O. Rath

Authors
  1. Matthias O. Rath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthias O. Rath .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Hacettepe University, Ankara, Türkiye

    Serap Kurbanoğlu

  2. University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

    Sonja Špiranec

  3. Université Gustav Eiffel, Paris, France

    Joumana Boustany

  4. Hacettepe University, Ankara, Türkiye

    Yurdagül Ünal

  5. Hacettepe University, Ankara, Türkiye

    İpek Şencan

  6. University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

    Denis Kos

  7. University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Esther Grassian

  8. University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Diane Mizrachi

  9. The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

    Loriene Roy

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Rath, M.O. (2024). To Find the “Rotten Apple” – Information Ethical Requirements for the Information Literacy of Autonomous Writing Engines. In: Kurbanoğlu, S., et al. Information Experience and Information Literacy. ECIL 2023. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 2043. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-52998-6_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-52998-6_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-52997-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-52998-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation