ChatGPT 介入学术论文透明度义务的可视正义功能

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 透明度规则是可信人工智能的基本准则，透明度义务是人工智能的设计者、开发者、使用者通过技术性正当程序和法律正当程序实现可视正义的责任机制。作为弱人工智能向强人工智能过渡的ChatGPT具有生成类似于人类创作的结构化内容的能力，其在提高学术能力的同时也会对学术诚信带来风险。ChatGPT介入学术论文创作涉及到著作权的底层逻辑、学术诚信的本位逻辑、可信人工智能的顶层逻辑，三重逻辑都要求作者履行透明度义务。透明度义务是数字义务履行的证明方式、数字公平的展示方式、数字责任的表达方式，具有学术诚信、学术责任和学术公平的保证功能。

Abstract: Rules of transparency are the basic principles of trustworthy AI, and obligation of transparency is the responsibility mechanism for designers, developers, and users of AI to achieve visual justice through technological and legal due process. As a transition from artificial narrow intelligence to artificial general intelligence, ChatGPT has the ability to generate structured content similar to that created by human. While improving academic capabilities, it also poses risks to academic integrity. ChatGPT's intervention in the creation of academic papers involves the underlying logic of copyright, the standard logic of academic integrity, and the top-level logic of trustworthy artificial intelligence. All three logics require authors to fulfill their obligation of transparency. Obligation of transparency is the proof of the performance of digital obligation, the display of digital fairness, and the expression of digital responsibility. It has the guarantee function of academic integrity, academic responsibility, and academic fairness.

程睿. ChatGPT 介入学术论文透明度义务的可视正义功能[J]. 科学学研究, 2023, 41(12): 2138-2146.

参考文献

[1] Heaven W D. Why GPT-3 is the best and worst of AI right now[EB/OL].(2021-02-24) [2023-03-20]. https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/02/24/1017797/gpt3-best-worst-ai-openai-natural-language/. [2] Bishop L. A computer wrote this paper: What ChatGPT means for education, research, and writing[R/OL]. (2023-01-27) [2023-03-19]. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4338981. [3] 程睿. 治理观视域下网络不良信息内容的法律认定标准[J]. 江西社会科学, 2022 (6) : 159-167. Cheng R. The legal identification standard of bad information content on the Internet under the perspective of governance[J]. Jiangxi Social Sciences, 2022 (6): 159-167. [4] Jabotinsky H Y, Sarel R. Co-authoring with an AI? Ethical dilemmas and artificial intelligence[R/OL]. (2023-03-06)[2023-03-22]. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4303959. [5] 詹启智. 报刊社记者采访类作品的著作权属探析——兼论教授接受采访收费依法应为显规则[J].出版发行研究, 2009(4): 50-53. Zhan Q Z. An analysis of the copyright Ownership of journalists' interview works in newspapers and periodicals－Concurrently on explicit rules of professor interview fees according to law[J]. 2009(4): 50-53. [6] 王迁. 论人工智能生成的内容在著作权法中的定性[J]. 法律科学（西北政法大学学报）, 2017 (5) : 148-155.Wang Q. On the qualitative nature of artificial intelligence generated content in copyright law[J]. Science of Law(Journal of Northwest University of Political Science and Law) , 2017 (5) : 148-155. [7] 熊琦. 人工智能生成内容的著作权认定[J]. 知识产权, 2017 (3) : 3-8. Xiong Q. Copyright determination of artificial intelligence generated content[J]. Intellectual Property, 2017 (3): 3-8. [8] 易继明. 人工智能创作物是作品吗？[J]. 法律科学（西北政法大学学报）, 2017 (5) : 137-147. Yi J M. Are artificial intelligence creations works?[J]. Science of Law(Journal of Northwest University of Political Science and Law) , 2017 (5) : 137-147. [9] 吴汉东. 人工智能生成作品的著作权法之问[J]. 中外法学, 2020 (3) : 653-673. Wu H D. Questions about the Copyright Law of Works Generated by Artificial Intelligence[J]. Peking University Law Journal, 2020 (3): 653-673. [10] Deng J Y, Lin Y J. The Benefits and challenges of ChatGPT: An overview [J]. Frontiers in Computing and Intelligent Systems, 2022, 2(2): 81-83. [11] European Commission High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence. Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI[EB/OL]. [2023-3-17]. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/ethics-guidelines-trustworthy-ai. [12] Ventayen R J M. OpenAI ChatGPT generated results: Similarity index of artificial intelligence (AI) based model[R/OL]. (2023, 01, 24) [2023, 03, 15]. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4332664. [13] 尼可拉斯·卢曼. 信任——一个社会复杂性的简化机制[M]. 上海：上海人民出版社, 2005: 24. Luhmann N. Trust－A Simplified Mechanism of Social Complexity [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai People's Publishing House, 2005: 24. [14] 珍妮·斯蒂尔. 风险与法律理论[M]. 北京：中国政法大学出版社, 2012: 55-56. Steele J. Risks and Legal Theory[M]. Beijing: Press of CUPL, 2012: 55-56. [15] 约翰·V. 奥尔特. 正当法律程序简史[M]. 北京：商务印书馆, 2006: 64. Orth J V. Due Process of Law: A Brief History[M]. Beijing: The Commercial Press, 2006: 64. [16] Arrieta A B, Díaz-Rodríguez N, Ser J D, et al. Explainable artificial intelligence ( XAI) : Concepts，taxonomies，opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI[J]. Information Fusion, 2020, 58: 82-115. [17] 季冬梅. 人工智能透明性原则的制度构建:范式选择与要素分析[J]. 科学学研究, 2022 (4) : 611-618+757. Ji D M. Institutional construction of the transparency principle of artificial intelligence: Paradigm selection and elements analysis[J]. Studies in Science of Science, 2022 (4) : 611-618+757. [18] 乌尔里希·贝克. 风险社会[M]. 南京: 译林出版社, 2004 : 216-217. Beck U. Risk Society[M]. Nanjing: Yilin Press, 2004: 216-217. [19] Stewart R B. Environmental Regulatory Decision Making under Uncertainty[M]// Swanson T. An Introduction to the Law and Economics of Environmental Policy: Issues in Institutional Design. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2002: 71-126． [20] Citron D K. Technological due process[J]. University of Washington Law Review, 2008, 85(6) :1249-1313. [21] 马长山. 数字社会的治理逻辑及其法治化展开[J]. 法律科学（西北政法大学学报）, 2020 (5) : 3-16. Ma C S. The governance logic of digital society and its legalization[J]. Science of Law(Journal of Northwest University of Political Science and Law) , 2020 (5) : 3-16. [22] Article 29 Data Protection Working Party. Guidelines on transparency under regulation 2016/679[EB/OL]. [2023-03-15]. https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/items/622227/en. [23] 驻纽约总领事馆教育组. 美国高校的学术自由与学术诚信[J]. 中国高等教育, 2003(18): 44-45. Education Office, Consulate General of the People's Republic of China in New York. Academic freedom and academic integrity in American universities[J]. China Higher Education, 2003(18): 44-45. [24] 汉斯·约纳斯. 技术、医学与伦理学——责任原理的实践[M].上海：上海译文出版社, 2008: 67-68. Jonas H. Technology, Medicine and Ethics－The Principle of Responsibility in Practice[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Translation Publishing House, 2008: 67-68. [25] 丁晓东. 论算法的法律规制[J]. 中国社会科学, 2020(12): 138-159+203. Ding X D. On the legal regulation of algorithms[J]. Social Sciences in China, 2020(12): 138-159+203. [26] 周尚君, 罗有成. 数字正义论：理论内涵与实践机制[J]. 社会科学, 2022(6): 166-177. Zhou S J, Luo Y C. Digital justice theory: Theoretical connotation and practical mechanism[J]. Journal of Social Sciences, 2022(6): 166-177 . [27] 史蒂芬·布雷耶. 规制及其改革[M]. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2008: 255.Breyer S. Regulation and Its Reform[M]. Beijing: Peking University Press, 2008: 255. [28] 方流芳. 学术剽窃和法律内外的对策[J]. 中国法学, 2006(5): 155-169. Fang L F. Academic plagiarism and countermeasures inside and outside the law[J]. China Legal Science, 2006(5): 155-169. [29] 季卫东. 探讨数字时代法律程序的意义——聚焦风险防控行政的算法独裁与程序公正[J]. 中国政法大学学报, 2023 (1): 83-99. Ji W D. Exploring the significance of legal procedures in the digital age-Focus on the algorithmic dictatorship and procedural fairness of risk prevention and control administration[J]. Journal of CUPL, 2023 (1): 83-99. [30] 马克思恩格斯选集(第3卷)[M]. 北京:人民出版社, 1995: 455. Selected Works of Marx and Engels Vol 3[M]. Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1995: 455. [31] 爱德华·希尔斯. 论学术自由[J]. 北京大学教育评论, 2005(1): 63-72. Shils E. Academic freedom[J]. Peking University Education Review, 2005(1): 63-72. [32] 俞吾金. 也谈学术规范、学术民主与学术自由[J].学术界, 2002(3): 152-155. Yu W J. On academic norms, academic democracy, and academic freedom[J]. Academics, 2002(3): 152-155. [33] 谢海定. 作为法律权利的学术自由权[J]. 中国法学, 2005(6), 16-32. Xie H D. Academic freedom as a legal right[J]. China Legal Science, 2005(6): 16-32. [34] 董保城. 教育法与学术自由[M]. 台北：月旦出版社股份有限公司, 1997: 21. Dong B C. Education Law and Academic Freedom[M]. Taipei: Yuedan Publishing House Co., Ltd, 1997: 21. [35] 王德志. 论我国学术自由的宪法基础[J]. 中国法学，2012 (5) : 5-23. Wang D Z. On the Constitutional Basis of Academic Freedom in China[J]. China Legal Science, 2012 (5): 5-23. [36] 湛中乐, 尹婷. 论学术自由：规范内涵、正当基础与法律保障[J]. 陕西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2016(3): 155-163. Zhan Z L, Yin T. On the Regular Connotation, Proper Basis and Legal Assurance of Academic Freedom[J]. Journal of Shaanxi Normal University(Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 2016(3): 155-163. [37] 唐纳德·肯尼迪. 学术责任[M]. 北京：新华出版社, 2002: 4. Kennedy D. Academic Duty[M]. Beijing: Xinhua Publishing House, 2002: 4. [38] European Parliament. A governance framework for algorithmic accountability and transparency[EB/OL]. [2023-03-22]. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_STU(2019)624262. [39] 蒋悟真. 科研评价权的理论阐释及体系建构[J]. 法学, 2022(12): 149-162. Jiang W Z. Theoretical interpretation and system construction of scientific research evaluation right[J]. Law Science, 2022(12): 149-162. [40] 中共中央办公厅,国务院办公厅.关于进一步加强科研诚信建设的若干意见[EB/OL].(2018-05-30) [2023-03-17].http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2018-05/30/content_5294886.htm. General Office of the CPC Central Committee, General Office of the State Council of the People's Republic of China. Several Opinions on Further Strengthening the Construction of Scientific Research Integrity[EB/OL].(2018-05-30) [2023-03-17]. http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2018-05/30/content_5294886.htm. [41] 约翰·罗尔斯. 正义论[M]. 北京：中国社会科学出版社, 1988: 88, 47-48. Rawls J. A Theory of Justice[M]. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press, 1988: 88, 47-48. [42] 汪庆华. 算法透明的多重维度和算法问责[J]. 比较法研究, 2020(6): 163-173. Wang Q H. The multiple dimensions of algorithm transparency and algorithm accountability[J]. Journal of Comparative Law, 2020(6): 163-173. [43] Ebers M, Gamito M C. Algorithmic governance and governance of algorithms—legal and ethical challenges[M]. Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland AG, 2021: 7. [44] 沈伟伟. 算法透明原则的迷思——算法规制理论的批判[J]. 环球法律评论, 2019(6): 20-39. Shen W W. The myth of the principle of algorithm transparency: Criticism of algorithm regulation theory[J]. Global Law Review, 2019(6): 20-39. [45] 季卫东. 法律程序的意义——对中国法制建设的另一种思考[J].中国社会科学,1993(1), 83-103. Ji W D. The significance of legal procedure－Another thinking on the construction of Chinese legal system. Social Sciences in China, 1993(1) : 83-103. [46] 哈贝马斯. 在事实与规范之间：关于法律和民主法治国的商谈理论[M]. 北京：三联书店，2003: 32-33. Habermas J. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy[M]. Beijing: Joint Publishing, 2003: 32-33.