EDITORIALMedicine, Health Care and Philosophyhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-023-10136-0example. It can also be repetitive, recycling phrases from previous answers in a slightly annoying manner. Neverthe-less, it is hard to suppress a feeling of awe when engaging with the chatbot for the fi rst time.QuestionsSoon after the release of the new chatbot, all kinds of ques-tions about its implications were raised. How is this technol-ogy going to af f ect the role of essay assignments in academic education (Stokel-Walker 2022)? Are software engineers going to lose their jobs, as these AI systems get better at writing code (Castelvecchi 2022)? What about the ef f ects on knowledge workers more generally (Krugman 2022)? In this editorial we develop a few preliminary thoughts about whether the fast progress of LLM technology means that editors of academic journals must now come up with new editorial policies specif i cally designed to address the chal-lenges that LLMs pose to academic publishing. Whether one believes this to be the case partly depends on one’s take on their evolutionary or revolutionary character.EvolutionOne way of looking at ChatGPT is to regard it as just another tool in the ever-growing toolbox available to aca-demics when conducting research and writing papers. One could for example deploy it as a search engine that answers questions directly instead of only referring to sources where one must look for the answers oneself. Moreover, those who fear a blank page might deploy ChatGPT to provide a very fi rst draft of a new piece of writing. One does only have to come up with a good prompt, which should even be feasible for someone suf f ering from writer’s block. Next, one could imagine engaging the chatbot as an interlocutor in a brain-storm session of sorts. However, ChatGPT has signif i cant limitations as well. It sometimes gives incorrect answers, can be overly sensitivity to arbitrary dif f erences in prompt In the last few years large language models (LLMs) have inspired an increasingly sophisticated academic debate about their ethical implications (see e.g., Weidinger et al. 2021). With OpenAI’s release of ChatGPT, on November 30th, 2022, this discussion has now moved mainstream. The new chatbot was released by way of research preview “… to get users’ feedback and learn about its strengths and weak-nesses” (OpenAI, 2022). In the following week more than a million users tried out the new chatbot (Vallance, 2022). The authors of this editorial could not resist the temptation either. So, we asked ChatGPT to write a column about con-temporary Greece and its ambivalent relationship with its glorious ancient past in the style of NYT Op-Ed columnist Thomas Friedman.Chatting with ChatGPTAfter a couple of seconds, the chatbot begins: “As I wander through the streets of modern Athens, I can’t help but feel a sense of ambivalence about the city’s relationship with its ancient past …” (answer by ChatGPT on 19 Dec. 2022). It continues with what turns out to be a well-designed little piece of writing. The language is fl uent, has a natural feel, and is pleasant to read. Now, another prompt is given: “Turn this writing into a Shakespearean sonnet.” ChatGPT writes: “Amidst the ancient ruins that lay scattered here, I feel a sense of ambivalence within …” (answer by ChatGPT on 19 Dec. 2022). Playing around like this is great fun, and the performance of ChatGPT is impressive. Yet, engaging fur-ther with the chatbot it soon becomes clear that it has certain shortcomings as well. It does make odd factual mistakes, for
Bert Gordijnbert.gordijn@dcu.ie1 Institute of Ethics, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland2 Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, USA3 Anahuac University, Mexico City, Mexico© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2023ChatGPT: evolution or revolution?Bert Gordijn 1 · Henk ten Have 2,31 3
