I've been married for nearly 40 years, and for no particular reason, neither my wife nor I felt compelled to share much about our prior love lives. There was nothing much noteworthy to share on my part, but that changed about three years into the marriage. A young woman with whom I had a summer-long relationship as a teenager was beginning to make waves in the music industry — waves that would continue to the point where her music is now instantly recognizable to most people.
I am in the habit of playing this artist's music, in part because of the personal connection and memories it evokes. Not long ago, my wife remarked that I am a "big fan." I smiled, nodded and changed the subject. My fear is that sharing this connection with my wife would jeopardize my continued enjoyment of this artist's body of work. No jealousy, I'm sure, just gentle ribbing I could do without. An ethical omission? — Name With held
From the Ethicist:
So for decades of married life, you never mentioned your summer with — well, readers can fill in their fave from the category of famous female pop singers who emerged in the mid-1980s. This is surprising. And yet the liaison doesn't have the kind of inherent significance that would make its disclosure obligatory. Every couple develop a cultural microclimate — their own set of expectations, conventions, values. Whether your failure to mention this relationship is ethically troubling depends on the norms of your microclimate. Some couples believe in telling each other every detail about their past; you and your wife have settled into a different habit. So the question is whether your wife would feel betrayed and hurt by your having kept silent about this summer of love — or whether, as you suggest, she would simply be amused.
Assuming your assessment is correct, you could offer her a deal. Tell her you'll explain why you're fond of this music, but only if she promises not to tease you about it. If that doesn't strike you as a good plan — well, you can carry on without much remorse. Plenty of people would have long dined out on such a connection; it's possible to admire the fact that you've never been tempted to do so.
Last week's question was from a reader who was a professor at a small college and recently became the chair of its English department. They wrote: "It occurred to me that ChatGPT might prove useful for the reports, proposals, assessments and the like that take up the precious time I could be devoting to students and my own scholarship. Is it OK to use ChatGPT to generate drafts of documents like these, which don't make a claim to creative 'genius'?"
In his response, the Ethicist noted: "I see no reason that you shouldn't s tart this way, provided you do the proper revising and are confident that the final document says what you want it to say. Big departments at big universities may employ half a dozen or more full-time administrators. Sometimes a departmental administrator is a dab hand at drafting documents of this sort for the chair to review and revise, and doing the same with ChatGPT is fine — as long as you exercise proper vigilance and can stand by what you submit." (Reread the full question and answer here.)
⬥
It is a bliss to have access to a technology capable of easing our daily struggle in any task that doesn't require human intuition or originality. What makes us proud as human beings is not the fact that we can fulfill tasks mindlessly, but to be able to create something new and uniq ue. — Stefan
⬥
I see no ethical issues in using ChatGPT without citing it for annual reports. However, in his answer Professor Appiah did not consider the possibility that the letter writer might include confidential information when prompting ChatGPT to provide drafts. That information will remain stored on ChatGPT servers indefinitely. Without a doubt, your university has a policy against sharing confidential information with third parties. Make sure you abide by that policy. — Stephen
⬥
The Ethicist's response left out one very critical consideration: data privacy. Any personally identifiable information should not be entered into ChatGPT unless and until the privacy risk is proven to be completely eliminated. We are all ethically bound to ensure our use of ChatGPT does not put our employers, colleagues and anyone else in our literal or figurative care at risk. — Anne
⬥
I am also a department chair grappling with the impact of artificial intelligence in our profession. Because the language in these reports is not fully the letter writers' own, it could technically be considered plagiarism. I would caution the letter writer to consider what the impact of such an allegation would be at their institution and on their career. — Brigid
⬥
In my opinion, the professor misconceives their role. The function of an administrator is to administrate. While there may be time to teach and do research, their primary function is to advance the interests of their department. Anything less is unethical. I don't disagree with a chatbot being used to generate documents, but the professor has a duty to ensure that they carefully review and edit each new iteration. — Donald
No comments:
Post a Comment