{"id":291,"date":"2023-12-07T17:11:09","date_gmt":"2023-12-07T17:11:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.open.ac.uk\/blogs\/welspgr\/?p=291"},"modified":"2023-12-11T11:36:03","modified_gmt":"2023-12-11T11:36:03","slug":"ai-for-academic-writing-to-plagiarise-or-not-to-plagiarise","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.open.ac.uk\/blogs\/welspgr\/index.php\/2023\/12\/07\/ai-for-academic-writing-to-plagiarise-or-not-to-plagiarise\/","title":{"rendered":"AI for academic writing \u2013 to plagiarise or not to plagiarise?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"Artificial Intelligence (AI), notably Chat GPT<\/a>, as a language model, can potentially be misused for plagiarism due to its ability to generate coherent and contextually relevant text. While it’s a powerful tool for various legitimate purposes, there is a risk that unethical users may employ it to produce content without proper attribution or originality.<\/p>\n

This was my belief last summer when I flagged several final-year scripts for potential plagiarism for unethical use of Chat GPT. Jonathan, in his recent blog<\/a>, refers to my explanation of why I suspected students\u2019 use of AI because their work seemed too perfect.<\/p>\n

By \u2018perfect\u2019, I meant, as I wrote in the paragraph above, \u2018coherent and contextually relevant text\u2019. Actually, I did not write that first paragraph (only!); rather, it was provided for me by Chat GPT. (I doubt I could have expressed so accurately the way I had felt about AI.)\u00a0 So, have I committed plagiarism?<\/p>\n

I become unsure when I turn for help to The Open University\u2019s Plagiarism Policy<\/a>:\u00a0 Plagiarism is using, without acknowledgement, someone else\u2019s words, ideas or work.\u00a0 \u00a0How far can we reasonably describe a robot as \u2018someone else\u2019? Was I unethical to use an expression I had commissioned framed? Would it have been less unethical if I had edited Chat GPT\u2019s text, or acknowledged its use, or have supplemented the text Chat GPT provided with appropriately referenced academic sources \u2013 my students did?<\/p>\n

Further, what of our writing is totally original in any case? Bakhtin ([1952-3]1994<\/a>) tells us, \u201cEach utterance is filled with the echoes and reverberations of other utterances\u201d (page 291). We continually adapt and adopt snippets of text from elsewhere and present them as our own. It is acceptable to consult a dictionary, a thesaurus or a Google search to help us write that coherent and contextually relevant text. Jonathan, in his recent blog post,<\/a> asks what all the fuss is about regarding AI, and I wonder, should we be making a fuss?<\/p>\n

Jonathan cites \u201cCan IT think?\u201d by Philip Ball (2023),<\/a> who argues that AI should be treated with great caution. and I have come across descriptions of widespread exploitation of AI \u00a0with dubious results, such as the use of a Chatbot as a therapist<\/a> \u2013 but is employing AI to aid our academic writing unethical?<\/p>\n

Returning to Chat GPT for inspiration, it continued to advise (or followed my instruction to do so) about the existence of Open AI<\/a>, their research company, which states their belief that \u201cAI should be an extension of individual human wills\u201d \u2013 an extension, not a replacement, then for human endeavour. This approach seems to resonate with Simpson<\/a> (2023), a clinical teaching fellow, who advocates reframing the way (medical) students think about AI \u201cnot as an academic shortcut but as more of a companion\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0 I like the idea of \u201ccompanion\u201d \u2013 like a dictionary or thesaurus \u2013 I also appreciate the concept of \u201cshortcut\u201d as a contested one.<\/p>\n

Might we ask, in our potentially fraught, busy, complex lives, why we should not look for shortcuts in our academic life besides our everyday existence? And how much of that endeavour that AI use shortcuts form part of a valued academic activity? It\u2019s saving thinking and editing time and providing that springboard to develop discussion, as it has for me above. Daher (2023) in Will Chat GPT be the disrupter academia needs?<\/a> seems to cautiously embrace AI as \u201cthe spark that will change education for the better\u201c, a means to reframe what we value in academic writing and to turn our focus towards critically evaluating sources.<\/p>\n

I do not understand that argument. Surely critical evaluation already forms a key part of being an academic. And I do value that time of thinking, crossing out, rewriting, checking and editing; it\u2019s part of the process that makes writing my own. I\u2019m not looking for shortcuts, and I don\u2019t plan to continue to make significant use of AI in my own work. But I don\u2019t now think using AI in academic writing is necessarily unethical, and how far it is plagiarism is a discussion we need to have.<\/p>\n

Chat GPT finished the 200 words I\u2019d requested with a bland reassurance: \u00a0Encouraging responsible AI use can help ensure that the technology benefits society positively without contributing to plagiarism issues.<\/em> (Chat GPT)<\/p>\n

AI, then, is just another tool in our digital repertoire, and, as Jonathan asked, What is all the fuss about?<\/em> <\/a>I am still not sure\u2026<\/p>\n

by Jane Cobb<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

<\/h5>\n
<\/h5>\n
I have been an Associate Lecturer at the Open University since 2002, tutoring mainly English Language modules.\u00a0 I live in Stourbridge in the West Midlands with my husband, two adult children and three Romanian rescue (street) dogs.\u00a0 My recent EdD and my current research interests concern the multiple perspectives around feedback practices around assessed writing in HE.\u00a0 This is my first venture into blogging, and I am looking forward to this creative space, where colleagues can share, debate, and discuss issues arising around their research.<\/h5>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Artificial Intelligence (AI), notably Chat GPT, as a language model, can potentially be misused for plagiarism due to its ability to generate coherent and contextually relevant text. While it’s a powerful tool for various legitimate purposes, there is a risk that unethical users may employ it to produce content without proper attribution or originality. This … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “AI for academic writing \u2013 to plagiarise or not to plagiarise?”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-291","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-edd"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.open.ac.uk\/blogs\/welspgr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/291","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.open.ac.uk\/blogs\/welspgr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.open.ac.uk\/blogs\/welspgr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.open.ac.uk\/blogs\/welspgr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.open.ac.uk\/blogs\/welspgr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=291"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.open.ac.uk\/blogs\/welspgr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/291\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":296,"href":"https:\/\/www.open.ac.uk\/blogs\/welspgr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/291\/revisions\/296"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.open.ac.uk\/blogs\/welspgr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=291"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.open.ac.uk\/blogs\/welspgr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=291"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.open.ac.uk\/blogs\/welspgr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=291"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}