Google Weighs In With Its Own AI Ethics Ideas
Stephanie Dejoode
LinkedIn and 3rd parties use essential and non-essential cookies to provide, secure, analyze and improve our Services, and to show you relevant ads (including professional and job ads) on and off LinkedIn. Learn more in our Cookie Policy.
I've been studying inquiries from reporters in my in-box who are asking for experts to weigh-in on the ethics of tools like Chat GPT and the long-term consequences for journalists. As a huge fan of AI and being exactly five-seconds ahead of the viral launch of #chatgpt I wasn't suprised to see the questions.
When it comes to reporting, interviewing your sources is the first step to crafting your story. So, it surprised me that some journalists hadn't thought to sit down and interview #ChatGPT on her thoughts. (Yes, I've decided to identify the tool as "her". For what it's worth, I also refer to my Jeep as a "her" and she's got a name too. It's only meant to be a term of endearment.)
GPT (Generative Pre-training Transformer) is a language model developed by OpenAI that can generate human-like text based on a given prompt. It has the potential to be a useful tool for journalists, as it can help them generate news articles or summaries quickly and accurately. However, it is important for journalists to consider the ethical implications of using GPT or similar tools in their work.
One ethical concern with using GPT or similar tools is the potential for the model to produce biased or misleading content. Language models like GPT are trained on large amounts of data from the internet, which means they can reflect the biases and prejudices present in that data. This can be particularly problematic when the model is used to generate news articles, as these articles may present a distorted or biased view of the world.
Another ethical concern is the potential for GPT and similar tools to be used to automate journalism and replace human journalists. While these tools can certainly be useful for assisting journalists in their work, they should not be used to completely replace human judgment and analysis. It is important for journalists to continue to use their critical thinking skills and fact-checking abilities to ensure that the content they produce is accurate and fair.
Overall, it is important for journalists to be mindful of the ethical implications of using GPT and similar tools in their work, and to use these tools with care and caution. They should be aware of the potential for bias and misinformation, and should use their own judgment and critical thinking skills to ensure that the content they produce is accurate and fair.
It is not common for journalists to interview GPT or similar language models because they are not human beings and do not have the capacity to speak or communicate in the same way as humans. GPT is a tool that can generate text based on a given prompt, but it does not have its own thoughts, feelings, or experiences to share.
Additionally, GPT is not a source of information in the same way that a human being can be. It is not capable of providing firsthand accounts or experiences, and it does not have access to any new or unique information beyond what it has been trained on. As a result, it is not typically considered a viable source for journalists to interview.
That being said, GPT and similar language models can be useful tools for journalists in other ways, such as by helping them generate news articles or summaries quickly and accurately. However, it is important for journalists to be mindful of the limitations of these tools and to use them with care and caution, as they can sometimes produce biased or misleading content.
It is difficult to predict exactly how GPT or similar language models will be used by journalists in the future, as it will depend on the specific needs and priorities of individual journalists and news organizations. However, one potential way that GPT could be useful for journalists is by helping them generate news articles or summaries quickly and accurately.
Language models like GPT are trained on large amounts of data and can generate human-like text based on a given prompt. This means that they have the potential to help journalists generate articles or summaries that are coherent and well-written, even if the journalist is working under a tight deadline or has a large volume of material to cover.
Of course, it is important for journalists to be mindful of the limitations of GPT and similar tools, as they can sometimes produce biased or misleading content. It is also important for journalists to continue to use their own critical thinking skills and fact-checking abilities to ensure that the content they produce is accurate and fair.
As an artificial intelligence, I do not have personal preferences or opinions. My goal is to provide objective and accurate information to assist users in their questions and tasks. I do not have the capacity to hold personal opinions or biases.
One thing that GPT (Generative Pre-training Transformer) and similar language models do exceptionally well is generating human-like text based on a given prompt. Language models like GPT are trained on large amounts of data and can generate text that is coherent and well-written, even on topics that they have not been explicitly trained on. This makes them a useful tool for tasks such as generating news articles or summaries, or for generating responses to customer inquiries in customer service contexts.
However, it is important to note that GPT and similar language models can sometimes produce biased or misleading content, as they are trained on data from the internet and can reflect the biases and prejudices present in that data. As a result, it is important to use these tools with caution and to fact-check their output to ensure that it is accurate and fair.
In conclusion, Chat GPT is a great tool for journalists because it can help them generate news articles or summaries quickly and accurately. Language models like GPT are trained on large amounts of data and can generate human-like text based on a given prompt, making them a useful tool for assisting journalists in their work. However, it is important for journalists to be mindful of the limitations of these tools and to use them with care and caution, as they can sometimes produce biased or misleading content. It is also important for journalists to continue to use their own critical thinking skills and fact-checking abilities to ensure that the content they produce is accurate and fair. Overall, GPT can be a valuable tool for journalists, as long as it is used responsibly and in conjunction with other fact-checking and editorial processes.
Weight stigma is a violation of the Social Work Code of Ethics. Given that weight loss attempts have been shown to be harmful and ineffective and that they increase weight stigma, the National Association of Social Workers urgently needs to revise its response to weight loss endorsement. Social determinants of health, a robust indicator of population well-being, are ignored when interventions focus on decreasing the body size of individuals. When considering interventions, the field of social work has a responsibility to consider the evidence of what helps as well as what harms. As social workers, we need to examine our own attitudes for the biases that may harm the very people we are directed to help. The Code of Ethics gives us clear direction when applied to the topic of weight stigma.
The dominant discourse in our culture is the weight centered paradigm in which weight is considered a reliable measure of health, leading to the concomitant assumption that the pursuit of weight loss is a worthwhile goal that will lead to a healthier individual (Bombak, 2014). Considerable evidence refutes both ideas. The promotion of weight loss efforts contributes to weight stigma, which is associated with discrimination, oppression, and poorer health outcomes (Bacon & Aphramor, 2011). Further, the focus on changing individual body size is an effective distraction from the much larger work that needs to be done in improving social determinants of health, especially for marginalized and vulnerable populations.
Promotion of weight loss and diet culture are not common conversations in social work; however, the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) has supported programs that reinforce the weight centered paradigm (e.g., NASW, 2010: Panzer, 2020; see Figure 1), thus amplifying weight stigma. The purpose of the current paper is to explore how these efforts are a clear violation of the NASW Code of Ethics and provide recommendations for moving our field forward.
Both anticipated and experienced stigma are associated with increased chronic stress and social isolation, and unhealthy behaviors changes (including disordered eating) which are linked with poorer health outcomes (Brochu, 2018; Hunger et al., 2018). Experiencing weight stigma is linked to hypertension, cardiovascular problems, diabetes, insulin resistance and overall impaired health (Major et al., 2013, Vartanian & Smyth, 2013). Thus, weight stigma leads to poorer health for individuals and for communities.
Meanwhile, the promotion of ineffective approaches to weight loss is highly profitable. The 66 billion dollar a year industry includes commercial weight loss programs, meal replacements, low calorie entrees, weight loss surgery, pharmaceutical products, books, DVDs, apps and online programs, profiting from the desperation of vulnerable people (Marketdata Enterprises, 2017). When these approaches do not lead to long term reduction in body size, the failure is blamed on the participant, not the product.
Assigning pathology to people in fat bodies is not only inaccurate, but it also contributes to discrimination and perpetuates oppression. Weight stigma is reinforced by all messages and assumptions that smaller bodies are better, healthier or more worthy and valuable than larger bodies. Visible fatness takes on a moral quality than leads to behaviors that are shaming and blaming towards those in larger bodies (Greenhalgh, 2012). Bias and discrimination then become justified and socially acceptable. The economic burden falls more heavily on fat women, who are paid less than their thinner peers, are less likely to be hired, or promoted (Fikkan & Rothblum, 2012), to be encouraged to attend college, or to be accepted into graduate school (Major et al., 2018). Weight stigma leads to lower socioeconomic status and greater social disparities, especially for women.
7fc3f7cf58