It has been almost one year since the release of ChatGPT, a large-language model-based chatbot by artificial intelligence research group OpenAI. In its roughly 10 months of existence, the tool has gained more than 100 million users, becoming the world’s fastest-growing consumer software application — and a lightning rod for discussions around AI and plagiarism.
ChatGPT was created to be an all-around tool for tasks involving language — for example, the program can give in-depth explanations of different subjects and events to users, write essays and articles, write code or simply have a chat with users.
However, ChatGPT has only arrived at this advanced point thanks to its massive knowledge base: the internet. Every response that it generates draws from the preexisting words and ideas of countless people online. According to some, the responses generated by ChatGPT should therefore be viewed as somewhat unethical, if not outright plagiarism.
“When it comes to how most people use it, like trying to write original content, (ChatGPT) is going in the wrong direction,” freshman creative writing major Evelyn Barnett said. “The information and words it uses are based on other people’s creations that were scraped off the internet somewhere.”
In particular, Barnett expressed concern for the availability of jobs within fields that revolve around writing, creativity and communication, citing the months-long Writers Guild of America strike as an example due to the demand to keep AI such as ChatGPT from replacing writers in the entertainment industry.
“I think there’s definitely a possibility that corporations will use AI like ChatGPT to write scripts or documents instead of paying employees or writers to do it,” Barnett said. “We’ve seen it already with the (Writers Guild of America) strikes, and AI is probably only going to improve.”
While Barnett did recognize the usefulness of ChatGPT, she stated its benefits did not outweigh the cost of its usage.
“I do think there’s good ways to use ChatGPT, like proofreading and improving your own writing and coming up with prompts and ideas to work with,” Barnett said. “But I don’t think that kind of use is as common or substantial as the harmful ways people use it.”
To prevent such misuse — students manufacturing papers with AI rather than writing them themselves — some high schools and universities have barred access to ChatGPT altogether.
While recognizing the potential for harm caused by ChatGPT, others believe it and similar AI software should simply be viewed as a tool — the damage done should instead be seen as caused by the society it is used within.
According to freshman social work and art major Milo Gildea, the question of moral usage of ChatGPT requires analysis beyond the scope of AI ethics.
“AI is a useful tool. It’s innovative, compelling and I think it’s wonderful that it was made,” Gildea said. “But the world we live in absolutely corrupts its uses for financial gain and exploiting workers.”
Gildea went on to explain his view that while intellectual property could protect artists’ income and livelihood, it is ultimately impossible to call any work truly original regardless of whether it was created by a human or by an AI.
“There’s the concept that AI has to pull from something preexisting and is therefore not an original idea, but we can easily say the same thing about our own minds. We all have to reference something else to create something,” Gildea said. “At the end of the day, I think calling ChatGPT and AI unoriginal stems from a corrupted view of originality.”
