<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

<p>The introduction of ChatGPT has fuelled a public debate on the appropriateness of using Generative AI (large language models; LLMs) in work, including a debate on how they might be used (and abused) by researchers. In the current work, we test whether delegating parts of the research process to LLMs leads people to distrust researchers and devalues their scientific work. Participants (<italic>N</italic> = 402) considered a researcher who delegates elements of the research process to a PhD student or LLM and rated three aspects of such delegation. Firstly, they rated whether it is morally appropriate to do so. Secondly, they judged whether—after deciding to delegate the research process—they would trust the scientist (that decided to delegate) to oversee future projects. Thirdly, they rated the expected accuracy and quality of the output from the delegated research process. Our results show that people judged delegating to an LLM as less morally acceptable than delegating to a human (<italic>d</italic> = –0.78). Delegation to an LLM also decreased trust to oversee future research projects (<italic>d</italic> = –0.80), and people thought the results would be less accurate and of lower quality (<italic>d</italic> = −0.85). We discuss how this devaluation might transfer into the underreporting of Generative AI use.</p>
</abstract>

The introduction of ChatGPT has fuelled a public debate on the appropriateness of using Generative AI (large language models; LLMs) in work, including a debate on how they might be used (and abused) by researchers. In the current work, we test whether delegating parts of the research process to LLMs leads people to distrust researchers and devalues their scientific work. Participants (N = 402) considered a researcher who delegates elements of the research process to a PhD student or LLM and rated three aspects of such delegation. Firstly, they rated whether it is morally appropriate to do so. Secondly, they judged whether—after deciding to delegate the research process—they would trust the scientist (that decided to delegate) to oversee future projects. Thirdly, they rated the expected accuracy and quality of the output from the delegated research process. Our results show that people judged delegating to an LLM as less morally 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.

Judgements of research co-created by Generative AI: Experimental evidence

Poznań University of Economics and Business, Humans & AI Laboratory (HAI Lab)

Department of Psychology, B44 University Road

Economics and Business Review

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

{"article-title":"Judgements of research co-created by Generative AI: Experimental evidence"}

The introduction of ChatGPT has fuelled a public debate on the appropriateness of using Generative AI (large language models; LLMs) in work, including a debate...

Judgements of research co-created by Generative AI: Experimental evidence

Data publikacji: 26 lip 2023

Zakres stron: 101 - 114

Otrzymano: 03 maj 2023

Przyjęty: 16 cze 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18559/ebr.2023.2.744

Słowa kluczowe
trust in science, metascience, ChatGPT, GPT, large language models, Generative AI, experiment

© 2023 Paweł Niszczota et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Judgements of research co-created by Generative AI: Experimental evidence

Data publikacji: 26 lip 2023

Zakres stron: 101 - 114

Otrzymano: 03 maj 2023

Przyjęty: 16 cze 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18559/ebr.2023.2.744

Słowa kluczowetrust in science, metascience, ChatGPT, GPT, large language models, Generative AI, experiment

© 2023 Paweł Niszczota et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Słowa kluczowe
trust in science, metascience, ChatGPT, GPT, large language models, Generative AI, experiment