Artificial intelligence (AI) technology has taken the world by storm and revolutionized the way we interact with information and data. One such AI tool is ChatGPT, a chatbot designed for natural language processing tasks like text generation and language understanding. Despite its popularity, ChatGPT has raised fundamental questions about the role of AI in processing self-generated content and data, and its limitations as a universal tool for serious writing.
While chatbots like ChatGPT are increasingly used to generate papers by professional firms, the results have often been disastrous due to corporate failures regarding quality assurance. Research shows that chatbots, based on computer software programs trained to use extensive libraries on the internet to process written or spoken human communications, have academic and policy limitations. For instance, chatbots can only produce content based on the libraries they were trained on, which can include factually incorrect or outdated answers that may sound credible.
Moreover, AI chatbots such as ChatGPT have limitations in terms of scientific integrity and authorship. Researchers have found manuscripts submitted for peer review, often with immediate rejection due to the lack of AI judgment and biased data. In the health and medical field, ChatGPT can provide recommendations but may offer more options that are not necessarily medically sound, requiring confirmation with an actual medical professional.
While AI technology has become a powerful tool for data processing and analysis, there are concerns about the accuracy, bias, and limited engagement due to the absence of direct interaction with human beings. ChatGPT has its uses, especially in the education and medical fields, but regulatory laws must enshrine its limitations and cons.
Overall, AI technology is not a panacea for writing serious academic or policy papers. There are benefits and drawbacks to using AI-generated data that must be considered, and software programs producing reports based on trajectory projections and scientific content analysis will continue to be useful tools. AI technology has its role, but it is not a substitute for human judgment and expertise.
