MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391094258 · doi:10.1109/mitp.2023.3340529

Nothing Is Harder to Resist Than the Temptation of AI

2023· article· en· W4391094258 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIT Professional · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEthics and Social Impacts of AI
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTemptationResistNothingComputer scienceComputer securityInternet privacyPsychologyNanotechnologyPhilosophyMaterials scienceEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of generative AI has become increasingly prevalent in the business world. With the ability to create original content and automate certain tasks, businesses have been quick to adopt this technology. However, as with any emerging technology, there are potential pitfalls to be aware of. This article aims to review the current state of generative AI in business and highlight some of the potential risks associated with its use. Specifically, we examine issues such as pausing giant AI experiments, misinformation, data accuracy, process automation, shift of power, control of civilization, organizational security, and the potential for AI-generated content to deceive individuals. By bringing these concerns to the forefront, we hope to encourage a more thoughtful and cautious approach to the use of generative AI in business.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.725
Threshold uncertainty score0.762

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.391 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it