van Dis, E. A. M., Bollen, J., Zuidema, W., van Rooij, R., & Bockting, C. L. (2023). ChatGPT: Five priorities for research. Nature, 614(7947), 224–226. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00288-7

“Hold on to human verification” (Dis 等, 2023, p. 224) 坚持人工验证

“Such errors could be due to an absence of the relevant articles in ChatGPT’s training set, a failure to distil the relevant information or being unable to distinguish between credible and less-credible sources. It seems that the same biases that often lead humans astray, such as availability, selection and confirmation biases, are reproduced and often even amplified in conversational AI6.” (Dis 等, 2023, p. 224) 这些错误可能是由于缺乏相关的文章在ChatGPT的训练集,未能提取相关信息或无法区分可信和不可信的来源。似乎同样的偏见,常常让人误入歧途,如可用性、选择和确认偏见,复制和经常在会话AI6甚至放大。

“Information that researchers reveal to ChatGPT and other LLMs might be incorporated into the model, which the chatbot could serve up to others with no acknowledgement of the original source.” (Dis 等, 2023, p. 225) 研究人员向 ChatGPT 和其他 LLM 透露的信息可能会被纳入模型，聊天机器人可以在不承认原始来源的情况下为其他人提供这些信息。

“Develop rules for accountability” (Dis 等, 2023, p. 225) 制定问责制规则

“Rather than engage in a futile arms race between AI chatbots and AI-chatbot-detectors, we think the research community and publishers should work out how to use LLMs with integrity, transparency and honesty.” (Dis 等, 2023, p. 225) 我们认为研究社区和出版商应该研究如何以诚信、透明和诚实的方式使用 LLM，而不是在 AI 聊天机器人和 AI 聊天机器人检测器之间进行一场徒劳的军备竞赛。

“Invest in truly open LLMs” (Dis 等, 2023, p. 225) 投资于真正开放的法学硕士

“Given the near-monopolies in search, word processing and information access of a few tech companies, this raises considerable ethical concerns.” (Dis 等, 2023, p. 225) 鉴于少数科技公司在搜索、文字处理和信息访问方面近乎垄断，这引发了相当大的道德问题。

“One of the most immediate issues for the research community is the lack of transparency. The underlying training sets and LLMs for ChatGPT and its predecessors are not publicly available” (Dis 等, 2023, p. 225) 研究界最紧迫的问题之一是缺乏透明度。 ChatGPT 及其前身的基础训练集和 LLM 不公开

“To counter this opacity, the development and implementation of open-source AI technology should be prioritized. Non-commercial organizations such as universities typically lack the computational and financial resources needed to keep up with the rapid pace of LLM development. We therefore advocate that scientific-funding organizations, universities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), government research facilities and organizations such as the United Nations — as well tech giants — make considerable investments in independent non-profit projects. This will help to develop advanced open-source, transparent and democratically controlled AI technologies.” (Dis 等, 2023, p. 225) 为了消除这种不透明性，应优先开发和实施开源 AI 技术。大学等非商业组织通常缺乏跟上 LLM 快速发展步伐所需的计算和财务资源。因此，我们提倡科学资助组织、大学、非政府组织 (NGO)、政府研究机构和联合国等组织——以及科技巨头——对独立的非营利项目进行大量投资。这将有助于开发先进的开源、透明和民主控制的人工智能技术。

“Embrace the benefits of AI” (Dis 等, 2023, p. 225) 拥抱人工智能的好处

“AI technology might rebalance the academic skill set. On the one hand, AI could optimize academic training — for example, by providing feedback to improve student writing and reasoning skills. On the other hand, it might reduce the need for certain skills, such as the ability to perform a literature search. It might also introduce new skills, such as prompt engineering (the process of designing and crafting the text that is used to prompt conversational AI models).” (Dis 等, 2023, p. 226) 人工智能技术可能会重新平衡学术技能组合。一方面，人工智能可以优化学术培训——例如，通过提供反馈来提高学生的写作和推理能力。另一方面，它可能会减少对某些技能的需求，例如进行文献检索的能力。它还可能引入新技能，例如提示工程（设计和制作用于提示会话 AI 模型的文本的过程）。

“Therefore, it is imperative that scholars, including ethicists, debate the trade-off between the use of AI creating a potential acceleration in knowledge generation and the loss of human potential and autonomy in the research process.” (Dis 等, 2023, p. 226) 因此，包括伦理学家在内的学者们必须就人工智能的使用创造潜在的知识生成加速与研究过程中人类潜能和自主权的丧失之间的权衡进行辩论。

“Widen the debate” (Dis 等, 2023, p. 226) 扩大辩论

“All contributors to research should be reminded that they will be held accountable for their work, whether it was generated with ChatGPT or not. Every author should be responsible for carefully fact-checking their text, results, data, code and references.” (Dis 等, 2023, p. 226) 应提醒研究的所有贡献者，他们将对自己的工作负责，无论其是否由 ChatGPT 生成。每个作者都应该负责仔细核查他们的文本、结果、数据、代码和参考文献。

“Therefore, it is important that debates include people from under-represented groups in research and from communities affected by the research, to use people’s lived experiences as an important resource.” (Dis 等, 2023, p. 226) 因此，重要的是，辩论要包括来自研究中代表性不足的群体和受研究影响的社区的人，以将人们的生活经历作为重要资源。