Where there's a will there's a way: ChatGPT is used more for science in countries where it is prohibited

This is a Plain English Papers summary of a research paper called Where there's a will there's a way: ChatGPT is used more for science in countries where it is prohibited. If you like these kinds of analysis, you should subscribe to the AImodels.fyi newsletter or follow me on Twitter.

Overview

• Researchers investigate the effectiveness of geographic restrictions on the use of the AI chatbot ChatGPT, particularly in the context of scientific research.
• They develop a machine learning model to detect the use of ChatGPT in preprint publications and analyze its usage patterns across different countries.
• The findings suggest that geographic restrictions on ChatGPT have been largely ineffective, with significant use of the chatbot even in countries where it is prohibited.

Plain English Explanation

Researchers wanted to understand how well efforts to restrict access to the AI chatbot ChatGPT were working, particularly in the world of science and research. They developed a machine learning model that could detect when ChatGPT was used to write scientific preprints (early versions of research papers).

The team found that ChatGPT was used in around 12.6% of preprints by August 2023, and its use was 7.7% higher in countries where ChatGPT is officially prohibited, like China and Russia. This suggests that the geographic restrictions on ChatGPT have not been very effective, as people have likely found ways around the bans.

The researchers also found that papers that used ChatGPT tended to get more views and downloads, but not necessarily more citations or better journal placements. This indicates that while ChatGPT may make writing easier, it doesn't necessarily improve the quality or impact of the research.

Overall, the study shows that attempts to limit the use of powerful AI tools like ChatGPT are facing significant challenges, as people find ways to access and use them regardless of geographic restrictions. This is an important consideration as policymakers and regulators grapple with how to manage the rise of AI technology.

Technical Explanation

The researchers used a machine learning approach to detect the use of ChatGPT in scientific preprints. They trained an ensemble classifier model on a dataset of abstracts from before and after the release of ChatGPT, leveraging the finding that early versions of ChatGPT used distinctive words like "delve." [1] This classifier was found to substantially outperform off-the-shelf language model detectors like GPTZero and ZeroGPT.

Applying this classifier to preprints from ArXiv, BioRxiv, and MedRxiv, the researchers found that ChatGPT was used in approximately 12.6% of preprints by August 2023. Crucially, they observed that ChatGPT use was 7.7% higher in countries without legal access to the chatbot, such as China and Russia. This pattern emerged before the first major legal large language model (LLM) became widely available in China, the largest producer of preprints from restricted countries.

The analysis also revealed that ChatGPT-written preprints received more views and downloads, but did not show significant differences in citations or journal placement. This suggests that while ChatGPT may make writing more accessible, it does not necessarily improve the quality or impact of the research.

Critical Analysis

The research provides valuable insights into the effectiveness of geographic restrictions on AI tools like ChatGPT. However, the study is limited to the specific context of scientific preprints, and the findings may not generalize to other domains where ChatGPT is used.

Additionally, the study does not delve into the potential implications of widespread ChatGPT use in research, such as concerns around academic integrity, the ethics of AI-assisted writing, or the long-term impacts on the scientific community. [2][3][4][5]

Further research is needed to understand the broader societal and ethical implications of the growing use of AI tools in academic and professional settings. Policymakers and regulators will need to carefully consider the nuances and challenges of regulating transformative technologies like ChatGPT.

Conclusion

This study highlights the significant challenges in effectively restricting the use of powerful AI chatbots like ChatGPT, even when geographic access is limited. The findings suggest that such restrictions have been largely ineffective in the context of scientific research, with widespread use of ChatGPT observed even in countries where it is officially prohibited.

These insights have important implications for how policymakers and regulators approach the governance of transformative AI technologies. As AI tools become increasingly ubiquitous, understanding the limitations of geographic restrictions and exploring alternative regulatory approaches will be crucial in shaping the responsible development and use of these technologies.

If you enjoyed this summary, consider subscribing to the AImodels.fyi newsletter or following me on Twitter for more AI and machine learning content.