There has been a lot of excitement following the release of ChatGPT to the public.
In simple terms, ChatGPT is a virtual assistant that operates over an extremely vast amount of digital content. The service, undoubtedly, demonstrates the ability of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to push existing boundaries and achieve new levels of innovation.
ChatGPT seemingly opens the door to “endless” possibilities. Whether it is to seek help with a resume for a job application, writing a speech, assessing a CV, debugging a computer programme, or doing some homework for primary school students, just to name a few examples.
This has led many organisations, including public institutions, to discuss the integration of such services in and the impact on their day-to-day operations.
ChatGPT is impressive, but that’s not the whole story
From the ChatGPT provider’s perspective, the economic advantage it yields is probably unrivalled. At the time of this writing, it is probably not yet fully understood by authorities, by the public and maybe the service provider itself. The only guarantee is that there is a lot to gain through such a service. This is corroborated by Microsoft’s recent investment in OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT. More importantly, we can expect other tech giants to follow suit and release similar services in the coming months.
It can be argued that one of the key advantages such a service yields to its users is that they can appear more knowledgeable while having done only the absolute minimum of research at best and little to none at worst. Despite this benefit, the long-term impact on its users’ ability to formulate independent thoughts is probably not receiving enough attention.
The search engine comparison is worth making
Importantly, to a great extent, a service like ChatGPT can “control” what its users express and therefore influence their thoughts and beliefs, affecting the overall “Diversity of Thoughts”. One can argue that using a search engine as of today equally shapes one’s thoughts through the sometimes seemingly arbitrarily relevant content returned by the search engine. However, the key difference is that the search engine does not provide users with a fully formulated thought but offers leads they must investigate themselves.
What diversity of thought actually means, and why it matters
To provide some context, in 2013, Deloitte released a research report in which it describes the concept of Diversity of Thoughts as:
The idea that our thinking is shaped by our culture, background, experiences, and personalities
It is often argued that a key element of a successful business or society is diversity; this idea is well established in fields such as economics. This begs a multitude of questions. For example, can we continue to diversify our thoughts when most of the thought process, if not all of it, has been outsourced to a service like ChatGPT? Does the service incorporate enough of our individual background, experiences, and personalities to fully account for what we stand for? How much control will we give away by embracing such services?
Who controls the thinking when everyone uses the same tool?
How much control and power does the service provider have by controlling such a service and what controls are in place to prevent them from potentially using it to their full advantage?
The accountability gap nobody’s legislating for yet – and where regulation needs to go next
Regulatory bodies would eventually need to intervene not only to identify boundaries and limitations of these tools, but, more importantly, to clearly define, to the extent possible, the rights and responsibilities of parties involved.
This will require answers to various practical questions beyond the above existential questions: For example, who bears responsibility for unintended consequences when one acts on the advice of such services?
