When a university vice-chancellor this week admitted to using AI in writing an opinion piece for a major Australian masthead, but did not disclose that use prior to publication, it highlighted the growing gap between people’s use of AI and trust in the technology.
Data from Roy Morgan this week showed 13.6m or 58% of the population older than 14 now use AI each month, with ChatGPT being the most popular, followed by Google’s Gemini and Microsoft Copilot.
Australians between the ages of 25-34 were most likely to use AI (74%) followed by 35-49 (72%), showing most of the workforce are those who are now using these tools.
Guardian Australia has covered extensively how it is affecting industries across the board – from healthcare to the legal system. As large language models are embedded into products we already use – whether we want it or not – people are going to use them.
Australians, however, deeply distrust AI, and how people use it. A survey from the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner last month found just 4% of Australians trust AI, putting the sector on par with data brokers, and 1% above social media platforms.
The survey found 79% of people want to know when AI is being used, up from 73% in 2023.
It’s the lack of transparency over when – and how – it is being used that seems to concern people the most.
The revelation this week that Western Sydney University pro vice-chancellor, Cath Ellis, had used AI in writing an opinion piece for the Sydney Morning Herald was less that she used AI, but more that the university admitted to it.
Western Sydney University admitted to Guardian Australia that Microsoft’s Copilot had been used in the development of the piece, which, ironically, made the argument arguing against students cutting corners as large language models are available to do essays and other university work.
The admission was made after the story went up, prompting the SMH to take down the piece after inquiries from Guardian Australia. The newspaper ran a mea culpa story later that day.
Had Ellis been transparent in the piece about her own use of AI and how it was useful, it might have been a different story. But then again, it may not have been published at all.
The availability of these models means this question of whether a piece of writing is truly the author’s own is unlikely to go away anytime soon, in academia, workplaces and media.
Fair Work Australia this week said it would ask for new powers to reject applications made with AI due to an unsustainable rise in applications that were clearly done with little effort or prospect of success.
Academic journals have instituted policies against generative AI being used in papers, but there are reports that AI use is growing rapidly.
There are even signs that in the world of programming – where AI is said to have brought the most benefit and efficiencies – there is pushback on its use in open-source programming like…
Source link
Disclaimer
We strive to uphold the highest ethical standards in all of our reporting and coverage. We blogs.grocliq.com want to be transparent with our readers about any potential conflicts of interest that may arise in our work. It’s possible that some of the investors we feature may have connections to other businesses, including competitors or companies we write about. However, we want to assure our readers that this will not have any impact on the integrity or impartiality of our reporting. We are committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news and information to our audience, and we will continue to uphold our ethics and principles in all of our work. Thank you for your trust and support.
Website Upgradation is going on for any glitch kindly connect at [email protected]
