Should Artificial Intelligent Agents be Your Co-author? Arguments in Favour, Informed by ChatGPT

24Citations
Citations of this article
73Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Academics have long relied on technological tools to support their research, with these tools growing in sophistication over time. As these tools have advanced, they have allowed researchers to create knowledge more effectively than could have been undertaken by humans alone. However, this paper argues that some new technologies may be moving from simple tools to being collaborators in research, with their abilities contributing not only to identifying previously unidentified relationships in the data, but also synthesising and explaining information to external audiences. Relying on existing literature and questions posed to ChatGPT, we argue that artificial intelligence tools have, or will have, the ability to meet the four conditions specified in the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations for authorship (the Vancouver Protocol), warranting these technologies to become co-authors on the advancement of academic endeavours; not just background support.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Polonsky, M. J., & Rotman, J. D. (2023, May 1). Should Artificial Intelligent Agents be Your Co-author? Arguments in Favour, Informed by ChatGPT. Australasian Marketing Journal. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1177/14413582231167882

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free