Introduction
The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) technology has revolutionized the way we interact with the world around us. AI is becoming increasingly integrated into our lives, from self-driving cars to voice-activated home assistants. One of the most recent AI developments is ChatGPT, AI software that can understand and generate texts and creative academic summaries and answer various questions (CNBC). This technology has the potential to revolutionize how we interact with each other and with the world, but it also raises important ethical questions. This paper will evaluate the ethical implications of ChatGPT, presenting an argument that claims that ChatGPT is ethical (using Chen’s piece) and defending this argument against Michael Sandel’s claim that markets crowd out nonmarket norms. Specifically, the fairness objection and corruption objection will be used to show how ChatGPT meets each objection’s criteria how ChatGPT meets each objection’s criteria. This paper aims to determine whether ChatGPT is ethical or unethical.
Central Argument
Brian X. Chen makes a strong case in his article “How to Utilize ChatGPT and Yet be a Good Person” for the ethical use of ChatGPT. Chen argues in his article that ChatGPT is not something to be feared or stigmatized since it has ethical applications. The author continues by elaborating on how ChatGPT may benefit people’s lives, such as by facilitating better communication for those with impairments and streamlining customer service.
Chen maintains that ChatGPT is not something to be feared or stigmatized since it has a place in society and can be utilized for good. He explains that ChatGPT has several potential applications, including facilitating the communication of persons with impairments and enhancing the quality of customer service. He adds that individuals may benefit from it since it can provide them with more up-to-date information to base more informed choices.
According to Chen, three guiding concepts should be considered while using ChatGPT in a morally responsible manner. It is important, he says, that users of ChatGPT understand its strengths and weaknesses, so he begins by making that case. Second, Chen says users should gain from using ChatGPT rather than lose. Lastly, he argues that ChatGPT’s benefits and drawbacks should be fair, with no one side favored over the other.
Chen’s defense of ChatGPT’s moral application rests on the conviction that AI can improve people’s lives and should be used to that end. He contends that ChatGPT has the potential to serve individuals in many different ways, including via improved customer service and informed decision-making. Additionally, he asserts that specific standards must be met for the usage of ChatGPT to be considered ethical.
Objection and Response
Chen’s defense of an ethical role for ChatGPT has some merit, but it has its detractors. According to Michael Sandel’s fundamental criticism of Chen’s reasoning, markets push aside nonmarket standards. Sandel claims that when market values are prioritized above other standards, people’s values become more commoditized and commercialized. This leads to a general shift from prioritizing ideals like fairness, justice, and equality in favor of material gain.
Since AI technology may be used to generate money and seek personal benefit, this criticism is pertinent to the ethical implications of ChatGPT because it can lead to the commoditization of values. One possible use of ChatGPT is to create legal papers or other texts for financial benefit, putting self-interest above principles like equity and fairness.
Chen might counter this concern by arguing that there are positive applications for ChatGPT. He might highlight how the technology may improve customer service, assist those with communication barriers, and provide individuals with more reliable data to make educated choices. Chen may also argue that controls may be placed on the technology to prevent its unethical or irresponsible use. To prevent ChatGPT from being used to create legal papers or other texts for commercial advantage, he may propose, for instance, that appropriate rules and regulations be implemented.
Evaluation of the Dispute
Analyzing the disagreement between Chen and Sandel has led me to the conclusion that ChatGPT may be utilized in a morally responsible manner. Like Chen, there are many ways this technology may be put to use for the common good, from enhancing customer service to facilitating more informed decision-making. The technology can and should be governed to ensure it is utilized responsibly and ethically.
Although I agree that Sandel makes a valid argument, I worry that values will be reduced to a commodity. I believe it is critical to be cognizant that ChatGPT might be manipulated to place self-interest ahead of more altruistic ends. Thus, it’s crucial to guarantee that ChatGPT is used ethically and responsibly and that its usage is controlled to prevent it from being exploited for dishonest objectives.
ChatGPT may be utilized ethically, provided certain guidelines are followed. These guidelines include openness, fairness, and the maximization of mutual benefit. The technology must be strictly governed as a further precaution against its misuse for dishonest ends. So, I think ChatGPT can be utilized ethically if the technology is handled responsibly and ethically and its usage is monitored.
Fairness Objection
The fairness objection to using ChatGPT is based on the idea that if used irresponsibly, AI technology can lead to unfair outcomes. For example, ChatGPT could generate essays for students to submit as their own work, thereby giving them an unfair advantage over their peers. In addition, ChatGPT could be used to generate legal documents to manipulate the legal system for personal gain, thereby undermining the fairness of the legal system.
Furthermore, ChatGPT could be used to generate biased or inaccurate information to manipulate people or organizations. For example, ChatGPT could be used to generate biased news articles to influence public opinion or generate false or misleading medical advice to influence people’s health decisions. All of these examples illustrate the potential for ChatGPT to be used in unethical ways, thus undermining the fairness of the outcomes.
To address the fairness objection to using ChatGPT, Chen might argue that the technology can be used responsibly and ethically. He might point out that ChatGPT can provide more accurate, up-to-date information to help people make better decisions. He might also argue that the technology can be regulated to ensure that it is used responsibly and ethically. For example, he might argue that there should be laws and regulations in place to ensure that ChatGPT is not used to generate legal documents or other texts for financial gain.
Corruption Objection
Arguments against using ChatGPT on the grounds of corruption are predicated on the belief that irresponsible use of artificial intelligence technologies may have corrupting effects. ChatGPT, for instance, might be used to fabricate data to influence audiences or organizations via deception. To influence public opinion, ChatGPT might be used to create biased news items, or it could be used to provide incorrect or misleading medical advice.
Chen may claim that ChatGPT may be utilized ethically and responsibly to counter criticisms about its potential for usage in corrupt situations. To assist individuals in making better judgments, he may mention that ChatGPT may be utilized to deliver more accurate and up-to-date information. He may also say that rules can be implemented to control how people use the technology, keeping it in good hands. For instance, he may argue that legislation and oversight are necessary to prevent the misuse of ChatGPT to fabricate data.
Conclusion
ChatGPT is AI software that can generate texts and answer questions. The ethical implications of this technology have been a topic of discussion, and this paper; has evaluated the ethical implications of ChatGPT. The central argument is that ChatGPT is ethical, and it is supported by Brian X. Chen’s article, which argues that ChatGPT has many potential applications that can benefit people’s lives. However, Michael Sandel’s criticism of Chen’s argument is that markets crowd out nonmarket norms, which may lead to the commodification of values. To address this objection, it is necessary to ensure that ChatGPT is used ethically and responsibly and its use is monitored. The fairness objection to using ChatGPT is also considered, and guidelines such as openness, fairness, and the maximization of mutual benefit should be followed to prevent unfair outcomes. In general, ChatGPT can be used ethically if handled responsibly and ethically, and its usage is monitored.
References
Chen, B. X. (2022, December 21). How to Use ChatGPT and Still Be a Good Person. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/21/technology/personaltech/how-to-use-chatgpt-ethically.html
Sandel, M. J. (2000). What money can’t buy: the moral limits of markets. Tanner Lectures on Human Values, 21, 87-122.
Why OpenAI’s ChatGPT Is Such A Big Deal. (n.d.). Www.youtube.com. Retrieved February 3, 2023, from https://youtu.be/pOmpqdlVCoo
write