Content uploaded by Damian Eke
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Damian Eke on Feb 22, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Responsible Technology 13 (2023) 100060
Available online 20 February 2023
2666-6596/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of ORBIT. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
ChatGPT and the rise of generative AI: Threat to academic integrity?
Damian Okaibedi Eke
School of Computer Science and Informatics, De Montfort University, Leicester, United Kingdom
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
ChatGPT
Large language models
OpenAI
Academic integrity
Generative AI
1. Introduction
The emergence of OpenAI’sChatGPT
1
has put intense spotlight on
Generative AI (Gen-AI) systems and their possible impacts on Academic
integrity. Generative AI systems are designed to generate content or
output (such as Text, images, audio, simulations, video and codes) from
the data they are trained on. Whereas ChatGPT is neither the rst Gen-AI
system ever developed nor is it the rst by OpenAI, it represents a
breakthrough in Generative AI technology. In many academic quarters,
concerns on academic integrity have been raised (Stokel-Walker, 2022).
This is fascinating considering that this is not the rst AI powered text
generator. A number of AI text/content generators for diverse contents
are available including but not limited to: Rytr,
2
Jasper,
3
CopyAI,
4
Writesonic,
5
Kafkai,
6
Copysmith,
7
Peppertype,
8
Articoolo,
9
Article Forge
10
and Copymatic.
11
The question then is: what is different
about ChatGPT that raises serious concerns?
For clearer perspectives, let us understand what ChatGPT is.
ChatGPT is a large language model (LLM) that uses deep learning to
generate human-like texts in response to prompts. It was released on the
30th of November 2022 as OpenAI’s latest iteration of their large
language models capable of having ‘intelligent’ conversations. This is
part of the Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) models from the
California based company. Before now, there has been GPT-1 launched
in 2018 (Radford et al., 2018), GPT-2 (Radford et al., 2019) and GPT-3
(Brown et al., 2020). In 2021, OpenAI released DALL.E 2, a Gen-AI
system for generating images from text. However, ChatGPT is different
from the previous models in many ways. Most importantly, it is different
from GPT-3 that is designed to perform a wide range of natural language
processing (NLP) such as language translation, text summarization, and
question answering, generation of creative writing (such as poetry or
ction), generation of high quality long or short form copy (such as blog
posts). On the other hand, ChatGPT is built from the GPT-3 language
model and has unique use cases (such as generation of responses in
dialogues/conversation, explanation of complex subjects, concept or
themes, generation of new codes or xing of existing codes for errors).
Overall, ChatGPT has more use cases than GPT-3 and as with many other
technologies it has logical malleability which means that it can be
ne-tuned for a variety of language tasks. ChatGPT’s capabilities have
been hailed as ‘scary good’ by proponents or described as ‘‘prolic and
highly effective and still learning’’ (Gleason, 2022). Additionally, it is
E-mail address: damian.eke@dmu.ac.uk.
1
https://chat.openai.com/chat
2
https://rytr.me/
3
https://www.jasper.ai/
4
https://www.copy.ai/?via=start
5
https://writesonic.com/
6
https://kafkai.com/en/
7
https://copysmith.ai/#a_aid=start
8
https://www.peppertype.ai/
9
http://articoolo.com/
10
https://www.articleforge.com/
11
https://copymatic.ai/
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Responsible Technology
journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/journal-of-responsible-technology
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrt.2023.100060
Journal of Responsible Technology 13 (2023) 100060
2
freely available to all users unlike many AI powered content generators.
The inherent capabilities of ChatGPT have been demonstrated in reports
that it has successfully passed a Law school exam (Choi et al., 2023) and
Master of Business Administration (MBA) exam (Terwiesch, 2023). A
judge in Colombia has also admitted that a court decision
12
was
informed by ChatGPT.
However, critics have pointed out that as a large language model,
ChatGPT is ‘‘‘not particularly innovative’ and ‘revolutionary’’’ because
similar systems have been developed in the past. Others have observed
that despite its uent and persuasive texts, the system still ‘‘lacks the
ability to truly understand the complexity of human language and
conversation’’ (Bogost, 2022). To be fair to the developers, a number of
limitations of the system are made clear to users. It is clearly presented
that it can occasionally generate incorrect information, produces
harmful instructions or biased content and has limited knowledge
because of the data it was trained on. Amidst a number of issues that
ChatGPT raises, this commentary only explores whether it undermines
academic integrity. It also provides recommendations on how academia
can be proactive in responding to the challenges ChatGPT and Gen-AI
systems raise.
2. Threat to academic integrity?
So far, experiences of academics with ChatGPT is that it correctly
answers questions often asked undergraduates and postgraduate stu-
dents (Lock, 2022) including questions requiring coding skills (Scharth,
2022). The general fear is that students as well as researchers can start
outsourcing their writing to ChatGPT. If some early responses to uni-
versity level essay questions are anything to go by, professors and lec-
turers should be worried about the future of essays as a form of
assessment. According to Stokel-Walker (2022), some of the responses
‘‘are so lucid, well-researched and decently referenced’’. Although it has
its limitations and ethical shortcomings (Birhane & Raji, 2022) like so
many other language models (Eliot, 2022; Weidinger et al., 2021), it is a
tool with broader implications for academic integrity.
According to the International Centre for Academic Integrity (2021),
academic integrity is dened as a commitment to six fundamental
values: honesty, trust, fairness, respect, responsibility and courage. As
such, when a person uses ChatGPT to generate essays or other forms of
written texts that are then passed off as original work, it violates the core
principles of academic integrity. ChatGPT raises similar concerns as the
well documented commercial ‘contract cheating’ in higher education
(Newton, 2018). The only difference is that ChatGPT is free and easily
accessible to all users. It also offers users the opportunity of interaction.
Users can tweak their queries to know how different the responses can
be. This means that there are possibilities of generating different text-
s/essays and the user can pick the best out of the lot. One academic was
quoted in a Nature commentary recently (Stokel-Walker, 2022) saying
that “at the moment, it’s looking a lot like the end of essays as an
assignment for education”. The concern in academia however is not
limited to its open and free availability, it is also rooted in the lack of
availability of tools to detect people using this viral chatbot. Turnitin,
Unicheck, PlagScan, Noplag and other plagiarism checker tools are often
used to maintain academic integrity. This gap is and should be a source
of concern that needs attention. It is also critical to reect on whether
using ChatGPT for academic paper or assignments can constitute
plagiarism in the moral sense of ‘‘theft of intellectual property’’. Whose
intellectual property is stolen when ChatGPT is passed off as original
work? Who is damaged by this act? While I agree that using ChatGPT
without proper acknowledgement goes against the fundamental values
of academic integrity, the whole plagiarism debate is a little more
complex.
I also admit that the hype around ChatGPT and its real-life capabil-
ities can either alarm or excite people in academia. The concern in
academia goes beyond whether it is bad or good technology. ChatGPT is
a denition of a disruptive technology. It is here and it is about to disrupt
both the ontology and epistemology of academia, science and teaching.
That means that academia is about to reconsider what constitutes
knowledge and how it can be acquired. The challenge then becomes;
how is this technology embraced and applied effectively, safely and
responsibly? Whether ChatGPT is a morally neutral technology or an
existential part of the normative moral order is not the focus of this
commentary. This does not mean that ChatGPT does not raise other
ethical issues beyond issues of academic integrity, or that these concerns
do not matter. There are a number of ethical issues surrounding large
language models already identied in literature (Bender et al., 2021).
The emerging stories of the human cost of building ChatGPT raise great
concern (Perrigo, 2023). However, these are not the focus of this essay.
What is clear from what we know about this technology so far is that it
could be used in ways that could undermine academic integrity. The
question then is: what can academia do about this?
3. What can academia do?
There are a number of things academia needs to do including but not
limited to considerations of the opportunities and challenges ChatGPT
and other LLMs present; understanding ways of maximising these op-
portunities while mitigating challenges to academic integrity.
3.1. Consider academic opportunities and challenges of ChatGPT
Academia needs to take ChatGPT seriously. By academia, I mean the
ecosystem that facilitates the pursuit of research, teaching, and schol-
arship in general. This includes academic and research institutions, ac-
ademic publishers and funders. ChatGPT and other generative AI
systems are revolutionary and academia needs to be ready to be part of
that revolution. It is not sustainable to ban, reject or dismiss it. This is a
technology that presents opportunities for teaching, research and
innovation. Using ChatGPT can become an efcient and time saving way
of carrying out academic activities. From lesson plan design, task crea-
tion, writing to provision of inspiration and ideas, ChatGPT can help
both teachers and students to improve teaching and learning experi-
ences. It can also be used to improve research. For instance, it can be a
tool for quick and easy generation of data for many types of research. It
can also be used as an analysis tool as well as a writing assistant for
research reports.
However, the responsible use of ChatGPT in academia faces signi-
cant challenges, particularly owing to potential misuses that constitute
threats to academic integrity. First, its usage without appropriate
acknowledgement is currently not reected in the academic integrity
policies or statements of academic institutions and publishers. This
needs to change. In addition to this, many people in academia; re-
searchers, teachers and students still do not know how to optimally use
the system, not to mention using it responsibly. There is a great need for
education.
Second, a harmonised and responsible way of acknowledging the use
of ChatGPT is yet to be established. A number of research papers have
listed ChatGPT as authors (Stokel-Walker, 2023). However, both Nature
(Nature, 2023) and Science (Thorp, 2023) journals have made their
stance clear that no LLM can be accepted as a credited author in their
journals. The current lack of guidance for users on how to acknowledge
the use of ChatGPT raises a lot of concerns.
Third, a tested, validated and accepted tool to identify dishonest use
of AI text generators in academia is not yet available. That means that it
12
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/feb/03/colombia-judge
-chatgpt-ruling#:~:text=A%20judge%20in%20Colombia%20has,costs%20of%
20his%20medical%20treatment.
D.O. Eke
Journal of Responsible Technology 13 (2023) 100060
3
is still easy to pass off an output from ChatGPT as an original work
without detection. To address this challenge, OpenAI has developed a
free tool (AI text Classier
13
) trained to distinguish between AI-written
and human-written texts. Unfortunately, this has been described as an
‘imperfect tool’ by OpenAI who warned that it should not be used as a
primary decision-making tool. How academic institutions and pub-
lishers will implement OpenAI’s imperfect tool or develop better tools
remains unclear.
Fourth, it is important to note that there is a greater concern for
institutions in Low-and-middle-income countries where Turnitin and
other plagiarism tools are yet to be integrated as measures for academic
integrity. Technical integration of these tools costs money which many
of the institutions in these countries do not have. ChatGPT could thus
exacerbate an already documented problem of cheating in these places
(Farahat, 2022). It presents a global challenge that requires a solution
that can work for everybody - a less expensive, safe, sustainable and
responsible solution.
3.2. Consider actionable steps to achieve responsible use of ChatGPT and
other Gen-AI systems in academia
Responsible use of generative AI systems in academia entails the
development of implementation approaches that maximise their capa-
bilities while mitigating threats to academic integrity. I believe the rst
thing for academia to do is to identify the use of AI generated texts
without acknowledgement as part of academic dishonesty. Whereas it is
implied in current academic integrity policies, it needs to be made
clearer for staff, students and in the case of journals, potential authors,
what values are violated when AI generated texts are used as original
work. Furthermore, there are many ways ChatGPT and other AI text
generators can be integrated into academic activities from assessment,
research to teaching. Knowledge of these approaches remains very low
in academia. Generative AI systems are changing the world students are
being prepared for. It is therefore the responsibility of the same aca-
demic institutions to prepare students for a world that is effectively
being revolutionised by LLMs.
Capacity development, for both staff and students, on the diverse use
cases of ChatGPT is therefore necessary in relevant institutions. On the
part of staff who are expected to identify dishonest uses of the tool, they
should be able to know how it works.
Furthermore, for universities to preserve the current assessment
methods based on written essays, there is a need to create a reliable tool
that can detect AI generated texts. However, designing such a tool and
incorporating it into effective or reliable assessment approaches will
require a lot of funding and the support or buy-in of OpenAI or other
creators of these language models. It may also take time to develop
whereas in the meantime, AI generated texts may already be part of
academic assessments. On the other hand, this may be an opportunity to
reconsider the future of essay writing as a form of assessment as Donald
(2018) has suggested. There are already calls to fundamentally change
assessment methods - a change from accessing nished essays to
assessing critical thinking involved in the process. Teaching students
who become good essay writers is important, but is understanding the
process not more important than the nished product? The integration
of ChatGPT in teaching students critical thinking and writing should be a
viable consideration. Where essays are absolutely necessary, oral exams
can be used more to supplement for better assessment.
This is not a problem limited to academic essays and students. There
are also risks of this happening within the wider academic life: journal
and conference papers, reports, blogs, dissertations, books and other
forms of academic writing. However, there is an argument to be made
that the system could allow people to play to their strengths and increase
the quality of their academic outputs. With all its limitations and
imperfections, ChatGPT can become an effective learning companion.
For instance, it can generate great ideas and texts that can in turn be
perfected by users. It is not an authoritative academic voice and neither
is it 100% accurate but it can be a good academic assistant. Devising
ways of referencing its use or application is therefore a necessity to
ensure its responsible use in academia. For users who want to maintain
the tenets of academic integrity before technical tools for identifying
cheating are developed, referencing ChatGPT could involve document-
ing date of generation, prompts used for generation and limiting the use
of direct quotation to one paragraph.
Additionally, the possibility of ChatGPT writing or correcting codes
calls for the reimagination of technical coding assessments. So far, it has
proven to be capable of writing functioning codes with custom prompts
which could help students answer basic data structures and algorithm
questions. I therefore suggest that including oral interview as part of the
assessment should not be a supplementary but a major part of the
assessment. This will give an opportunity of testing the students’
knowledge of the codes and their functions.
4. Conclusion
I argue that the way ChatGPT and other AI powered text generators
are used could surely undermine academic integrity. They are also
capable of revolutionising academia. It is the responsibility of all of us
humans to ensure that the risks to academic integrity are mitigated for
greater maximisation. This needs a multi-stakeholder effort; from the
technical developers, policy makers in academic institutions, publishers,
professors, lecturers to students. Academic writing, essay assignments
and technical coding assessments may not be dead but it is time to
reimagine critical changes to ensure sustainable integrity in academia.
In summary, academic institutions need to do a number of things:
•Embrace ChatGPT as an essential part of pedagogy and research.
•Establish ChatGPT training and capacity building for both staff and
students for optimal maximisation and to ensure responsible use.
Providing necessary support and resources to both staff and students
can help to mitigate possible risks to academic integrity.
•Review their academic integrity policies and make necessary
changes to reect current AI trends and possibilities.
•Work with relevant bodies (including but not limited to journal ed-
itors and publishers) to co-create effective ways of acknowledging
the use of ChatGPT and other AI tools in academic texts.
•Work towards developing cost effective and trusted tools for iden-
tifying possible dishonest use of AI tools in academia globally.
Finally, OpenAI and other large language model creators should be
willing to work with academia to achieve responsible use of AI powered
text generators in academia. OpenAI’s move to develop the ‘imperfect’
classier is a welcome development but not sufcient to address aca-
demic integrity concerns. The company’s current engagement with ed-
ucators in the US is also commendable. However, such engagement
should be extended to stakeholders in academia in other parts of the
world, particularly ones from low-and-middle-income countries. A
multi-stakeholder endeavour is needed to co-create solutions to main-
tain academic integrity. This may include redenition of what consti-
tutes academic achievement, impact and novel ways of measuring them.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing nancial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to inuence
the work reported in this paper.
13
https://openai.com/blog/new-ai-classier-for-indicating-ai-written-text/
D.O. Eke
Journal of Responsible Technology 13 (2023) 100060
4
References
Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of
stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big?. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM
Conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, FAccT ’21 (pp. 610–623).
New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/
10.1145/3442188.3445922.
Birhane, A., Raji, I.D., 2022. ChatGPT, galactica, and the progress trap | WIRED [WWW
document]. WIRED. URL https://www.wired.com/story/large-language-models-
critique/ (accessed 12.20.22).
Bogost, I. (2022). ChatGPT is dumber than you think [WWW document]. The Atlantic.
URL https://www.theatlantic.com/. technology/archive/2022/12/chatgpt-openai-
articial-intelligence-writing-ethics/672386/(accessed 2.6.23).
Brown, T., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J. D., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A.,
Shyam, P., Sastry, G, & Askell, A. (2020). Language models are few-shot learners.
Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33, 1877–1901.
Choi, J.H., Hickman, K.E., Monahan, A., Schwarcz, D., 2023. ChatGPT goes to law
school. Available SSRN.
Donald, A., 2018. Is the ‘time of the assessed essay’ over? Teach. Perspect. Bus. Sch. URL
https://blogs.sussex.ac.uk/business-school-teaching/2018/11/14/is-the-time-
of-the-assessed-essay-over/(accessed 12.20.22).
Eliot, L. (2022). AI ethics and the future of where large language models are heading
[WWW document]. Forbes. URL https://www.forbes.com/sites/lanceeliot/2022/0
8/30/ai-ethics-asking-aloud-whether-large-language-models-and-their-bossy-bel
ievers-are-taking-ai-down-a-dead-end-path/ (accessed 12.19.22).
Farahat, A. (2022). Elements of academic integrity in a cross-cultural Middle Eastern
educational system: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan case study. International Journal
for Educational Integrity, 18, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-021-00095-5
Gleason, N. (2022). ChatGPT and the rise of AI writers: How should higher education
respond? [WWW document]. Campus Learn Share Connect. URL https://www.timeshi
ghereducation.com/campus/chatgpt-and-rise-ai-writers-how-should-higher-e
ducation-respond (accessed 12.19.22).
International Center for Academic Integrity (2021) The fundamental values of academic
integrity, 3rd edn. Available at: https://academicintegrity.org/resources/funda
mental-values (accessed 10.10.2022).
Lock, S. (2022). What is AI chatbot phenomenon ChatGPT and could it replace humans?
[WWW document]. The Guardian. URL https://www.theguardian.com/technology/
2022/dec/05/what-is-ai-chatbot-phenomenon-chatgpt-and-could-it-replace-humans
(accessed 12.20.22).
Nature. (2023). Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our ground
rules for their use. Nature, 613. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00191-1,
612–612.
Newton, P. M. (2018). How common is commercial contract cheating in higher education
and is it increasing? A systematic review. Frontiers in Education, 3. https://doi.org/
10.3389/feduc.2018.00067
Perrigo, B. (2023). Exclusive: The $2 per hour workers who made ChatGPT safer [WWW
document]. Time. URL https://time.com/6247678/openai-chatgpt-kenya-workers/
(accessed 2.6.23).
Radford, A., Narasimhan, K., Salimans, T., Sutskever, I., 2018. Improving language
understanding by generative pre-training.
Radford, A., Wu, J., Child, R., Luan, D., Amodei, D., & Sutskever, I. (2019). Language
models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI Blog, 1, 9.
Scharth, M. (2022). The ChatGPT chatbot is blowing people away with its writing skills.
An expert explains why it’s so impressive [WWW document]. The Conversation. URL
http://theconversation.com/the-chatgpt-chatbot-is-blowing-people-away-with-its
-writing-skills-an-expert-explains-why-its-so-impressive-195908 (accessed
12.20.22).
Stokel-Walker, C. (2022). AI bot ChatGPT writes smart essays — Should professors
worry? Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-04397-7
Stokel-Walker, C. (2023). ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: Many scientists
disapprove. Nature, 613, 620–621. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00107-z
Terwiesch, C., 2023. Would chat GPT3 get a Wharton MBA? A prediction based on its
performance in the operations management course. Mack Inst. Innov. Manag. Whart.
Sch. Univ. Pa.
Thorp, H. H. (2023). ChatGPT is fun, but not an author. Science (New York, N.Y.), 379.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adg7879, 313–313.
Weidinger, L., Mellor, J., Rauh, M., Grifn, C., Uesato, J., Huang, P.-.S., Cheng, M.,
Glaese, M., Balle, B., Kasirzadeh, A., Kenton, Z., Brown, S., Hawkins, W., Stepleton,
T., Biles, C., Birhane, A., Haas, J., Rimell, L., Hendricks, L.A., ..., Gabriel, I., 2021.
Ethical and social risks of harm from language models. ArXiv211204359 Cs.
D.O. Eke
