end of year greetings, and ChatGPT
5 views
Skip to first unread message
Ted Pedersen
Dec 8, 2022, 10:09:36 AM12/8/22
to Dulu...@googlegroups.com
Greetings all,
Another Fall semester is drawing to a close here at UMD, and I suddenly remembered I've been neglecting this little list. Thanks if you are still here and reading. :)
Prompt (written by me):
Edward Snowden faced an ethical dilemma. Describe the nature of his dilemma (as he saw it). Then describe the action he took to resolve that dilemma, along with two other courses of action that were open to Snowden that could have potentially resolved this dilemma (such that he could still achieve the benefits he sought). Of these three options describe which is the most ethical and which is the least ethical according to the ACM Code of Ethics. Support your arguments for the most ethical option with 3 points from the ACM Code and support your arguments for the least ethical option with a different 3 points from the ACM Code. Refer to the points from the ACM Code by the numbers assigned to them in that document. Make sure to explain why each point supports your argument. When faced with a similar situation, what would you do? Support your answer with at least 2 points from the ACM Code of Ethics.
Response (written by ChatGPT)
Edward Snowden faced an ethical dilemma when he discovered that the US government was engaged in widespread surveillance of its citizens. As a contractor working for the National Security Agency (NSA), Snowden had access to classified information about the government's surveillance programs. He believed that these programs were a violation of individuals' privacy rights, and he was troubled by the fact that the government was conducting this surveillance without the knowledge or consent of the public.
To resolve this dilemma, Snowden decided to leak the classified information he had access to. He believed that by revealing the government's surveillance programs to the public, he could expose the abuses of power that were taking place and potentially spur the government to change its policies. This action was risky for Snowden, as it could result in severe legal consequences for him.
Two other courses of action that were open to Snowden that could have potentially resolved this dilemma were to bring the issue up through official channels within the government, or to remain silent and continue working for the NSA. Bringing the issue up through official channels could have allowed Snowden to raise his concerns without risking legal consequences, but it may not have had the same impact as leaking the information to the public. Remaining silent and continuing to work for the NSA would have allowed Snowden to avoid legal consequences, but it would have meant continuing to be complicit in the government's surveillance programs.
According to the ACM Code of Ethics, the most ethical course of action for Snowden would have been to bring the issue up through official channels within the government. This option aligns with the ACM's principle of avoiding harm (1.1), as it would have allowed Snowden to raise his concerns without risking legal consequences. It also aligns with the principle of being honest and trustworthy (1.2), as it would have allowed Snowden to be transparent about his concerns and potential solutions. Finally, it aligns with the principle of respecting the privacy of others (1.3), as it would have allowed Snowden to raise concerns about the government's surveillance programs without violating the privacy of the individuals involved.
On the other hand, the least ethical course of action for Snowden would have been to remain silent and continue working for the NSA. This option goes against the ACM's principle of avoiding harm (1.1), as it would have meant continuing to be complicit in the government's surveillance programs, which violated the privacy rights of individuals. It also goes against the principle of being honest and trustworthy (1.2), as it would have meant continuing to work for the NSA while hiding his concerns about the government's surveillance programs. Finally, it goes against the principle of accountability (1.6), as it would have meant avoiding taking responsibility for his actions and the impact they had on others.
If I were faced with a similar situation, I would try to bring the issue up through official channels within the government. This option aligns with the ACM's principle of being honest and trustworthy (1.2), as it would allow me to raise my concerns transparently and without hiding any information. It also aligns with the principle of respect for intellectual property (1.4), as it would allow me to raise my concerns without violating any confidentiality agreements or legal obligations. By bringing the issue up through official channels, I could potentially have a greater impact on the outcome while also avoiding legal consequences and respecting the privacy of others.
I sent a note to my colleagues in the CS department today letting them know about a small experiment I did with ChatGPT. This is a pretty interesting development both for us in NLP and those of us who include writing assignments in our teaching, as I do in Computer Ethics, so I thought I would also share that here.
Read on, and best wishes as we move into 2023!
=======================
There's some recent news from the world of NLP that should be of interest to any of us who give writing assignments.
In CS 3111 Computer Ethics one of the kinds of writing we do are five paragraph essays on what I hope are interesting ethical dilemmas. Below you see a prompt I assigned this semester, and a response from a chatbot called ChatGPT which is available now in demo mode for anyone who requests a free account.
How this all works is complicated (and is a main topic in CS 5642 btw), but the important point is that it is generating "new" text - this is not just a look up through a database of previous essays, etc. it is actually writing or creating the response (in some sense).
I think the response from ChatGPT to my prompt (shown below) is very good, in general correct, and would likely get full credit in my class. There are a few limitations - for example the points from the ACM Code are correct but misnumbered, Snowden did not leak to the public (he leaked to journalists who then presented to the public), and it uses 6 paragraphs, but you'll notice the prompt itself does not specify that (this is understood as a part of the expectations by the students).
I'm not sure what, if anything, this development means for what I do with writing assignments, although I think it would be wise to assume students will quickly become aware of this and similar tools.
Edward Snowden faced an ethical dilemma. Describe the nature of his dilemma (as he saw it). Then describe the action he took to resolve that dilemma, along with two other courses of action that were open to Snowden that could have potentially resolved this dilemma (such that he could still achieve the benefits he sought). Of these three options describe which is the most ethical and which is the least ethical according to the ACM Code of Ethics. Support your arguments for the most ethical option with 3 points from the ACM Code and support your arguments for the least ethical option with a different 3 points from the ACM Code. Refer to the points from the ACM Code by the numbers assigned to them in that document. Make sure to explain why each point supports your argument. When faced with a similar situation, what would you do? Support your answer with at least 2 points from the ACM Code of Ethics.
Response (written by ChatGPT)
Edward Snowden faced an ethical dilemma when he discovered that the US government was engaged in widespread surveillance of its citizens. As a contractor working for the National Security Agency (NSA), Snowden had access to classified information about the government's surveillance programs. He believed that these programs were a violation of individuals' privacy rights, and he was troubled by the fact that the government was conducting this surveillance without the knowledge or consent of the public.
To resolve this dilemma, Snowden decided to leak the classified information he had access to. He believed that by revealing the government's surveillance programs to the public, he could expose the abuses of power that were taking place and potentially spur the government to change its policies. This action was risky for Snowden, as it could result in severe legal consequences for him.
Two other courses of action that were open to Snowden that could have potentially resolved this dilemma were to bring the issue up through official channels within the government, or to remain silent and continue working for the NSA. Bringing the issue up through official channels could have allowed Snowden to raise his concerns without risking legal consequences, but it may not have had the same impact as leaking the information to the public. Remaining silent and continuing to work for the NSA would have allowed Snowden to avoid legal consequences, but it would have meant continuing to be complicit in the government's surveillance programs.
According to the ACM Code of Ethics, the most ethical course of action for Snowden would have been to bring the issue up through official channels within the government. This option aligns with the ACM's principle of avoiding harm (1.1), as it would have allowed Snowden to raise his concerns without risking legal consequences. It also aligns with the principle of being honest and trustworthy (1.2), as it would have allowed Snowden to be transparent about his concerns and potential solutions. Finally, it aligns with the principle of respecting the privacy of others (1.3), as it would have allowed Snowden to raise concerns about the government's surveillance programs without violating the privacy of the individuals involved.
On the other hand, the least ethical course of action for Snowden would have been to remain silent and continue working for the NSA. This option goes against the ACM's principle of avoiding harm (1.1), as it would have meant continuing to be complicit in the government's surveillance programs, which violated the privacy rights of individuals. It also goes against the principle of being honest and trustworthy (1.2), as it would have meant continuing to work for the NSA while hiding his concerns about the government's surveillance programs. Finally, it goes against the principle of accountability (1.6), as it would have meant avoiding taking responsibility for his actions and the impact they had on others.
If I were faced with a similar situation, I would try to bring the issue up through official channels within the government. This option aligns with the ACM's principle of being honest and trustworthy (1.2), as it would allow me to raise my concerns transparently and without hiding any information. It also aligns with the principle of respect for intellectual property (1.4), as it would allow me to raise my concerns without violating any confidentiality agreements or legal obligations. By bringing the issue up through official channels, I could potentially have a greater impact on the outcome while also avoiding legal consequences and respecting the privacy of others.
---
Dr. Ted Pedersen (he/him)
http://www.d.umn.edu/~tpederse
http://www.d.umn.edu/~tpederse
UEA-A Member : https://sites.google.com/d.umn.edu/ueaumd
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages