Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Dear Editor,
We found that the article on “Quid Pro Quo Doctor, I tell you things, you tell me things: ChatGPT’s thoughts on a killer [1]” is interesting. One such critique is the ethical obligation of enabling an AI system to partake in debates concerning a “killer.” It raises worries about the implications of normalizing or trivializing such serious and sensitive matters. Furthermore, there may be issues about the veracity and relevance of the information produced by an AI system on such topics. To overcome these challenges, explicit standards and ethical bounds for AI systems like ChatGPT must be established. This involves ensuring that the AI system is trained to prioritize user safety, follow legal and ethical norms, and refrain from participating in debates that may encourage harm or misinformation. Implementing effective content moderation systems and include feedback loops for continual development can be beneficial. Furthermore, continued research and debates on the ethical implications of AI systems in sensitive fields will be critical in determining future standards and policies.
Importantly, to balance the advantages and potential disadvantages of generative AI, effective governance and monitoring techniques are required. Sensitive content should not be created, changed, or authorized by AI if human review is a possibility [2]. You can discover a lot about issues and solutions on ChatGPT. The ChatGPT results suggest that some of these datasets might include false presumptions or viewpoints. Patients may receive false or misleading information as a result. Think about the moral dilemmas that utilizing AI and chatbots in academic research poses before moving on.
References
Menshawey R, Menshawey E. Quid Pro Quo Doctor, I tell you things, you tell me things: ChatGPT’s thoughts on a killer. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-023-00696-1. Online ahead of print.
Kleebayoon A, Wiwanitkit V. artificial intelligence, chatbots, plagiarism and basic honesty: comment. Cell Mol Bioeng. 2023;16(2):173–4.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
AK 50% ideas, writing, analyzing, approval. VW 50% ideas, supervision, approval.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kleebayoon, A., Wiwanitkit, V. ChatGPT’s thoughts: comment. Forensic Sci Med Pathol (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-023-00712-4
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-023-00712-4