Artificial intelligence in developing countries: The impact of generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies for development
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the potential impact of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Generative AI) on developing countries, considering both positive and negative effects across various domains of information, culture, and industry. Generative Artificial Intelligence refers to artificial intelligence (AI) systems that generate content, such as text, audio, or video, aiming to produce novel and creative outputs based on training data. Compared to conversational artificial intelligence, generative artificial intelligence systems have the unique capability of not only providing replies but also generating the content of those responses. Recent advancements in Artificial Intelligence during the Fourth Industrial Revolution, exemplified by tools like ChatGPT, have gained popularity and reshaped content production and creation. However, the benefits of generative artificial intelligence are not equally accessible to all, especially in developing countries, where limited access to cutting-edge technologies and inadequate infrastructure pose challenges. This paper seeks to understand the potential impact of generative AI technologies on developing countries, considering economic growth, access to technology, and the potential paradigm shift in education, healthcare, and the environment. The findings emphasize the importance of providing the necessary support and infrastructure to ensure that generative AI contributes to inclusive development rather than deepening existing inequalities. The study highlights the significance of integrating Generative AI into the context of the Fourth Industrial Revolution in developing countries, where technological change is a crucial determinant of progress and equitable growth.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it