Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Generative AI entails a credit–blame asymmetry

Nature Machine Intelligence volume 5, pages 472–475 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Generative AI programs can produce high-quality written and visual content that may be used for good or ill. We argue that a credit–blame asymmetry arises for assigning responsibility for these outputs and discuss urgent ethical and policy implications focused on large-scale language models.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Nat. Mach. Intell. 4, 1055–1056 (2022).

  2. Weidinger, L. et al. ACM FAccT 214–229 (2021).

  3. Shanahan, M. Preprint at arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.03551 (2022).

  4. Bender et al. ACM FAccT 610–623 (2021).

  5. Nyholm, S. Sci. Eng. Ethics 24, 1201–1219 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Maslen, H., Savulescu, J. & Hunt, C. Australas. J. Philos. 98, 304–318 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Nyholm, S. This is Technology Ethics: An Introduction ch. 6 (Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell, 2023).

  8. Meckler, L. & Verma, P. Teachers are on alert for inevitable cheating after release of ChatGPT. The Washington Post (28 December 2022); https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/12/28/chatbot-cheating-ai-chatbotgpt-teachers/

  9. Danaher, J. & Nyholm, S. AI Ethics 1, 227–237 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Rini, R. Philos. Impr. 20, 1–16 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lazer, D. M. et al. Science 359, 1094–1096 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Radford, A. et al. Technical report, OpenAi https://d4mucfpksywv.cloudfront.net/better-language-models/language_models_are_unsupervised_multitask_learners.pdf (2019).

  13. Kreps, S. & McCain, M. Not Your Father’s Bots. Foreign affairs https://www.foreignaffairs.com/world/not-your-fathers-bots (2019).

  14. Stokel-Walker, C. Nature 613, 620–621 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Nature 613, 612 (2023).

  16. Bosher, H. et al. WIPO Impact of Artificial Intelligence on IP Policy Response from Brunel University London, Law School & Centre for Artificial Intelligence (Brunel University London, 2020).

  17. Eshraghian, J. K. Nat. Mach. Intell. 2, 157–160 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ginsburg, J. C. & Budiardjo, L. A. Berkeley Tech. L. J. 34, 343–448 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Miernicki, M. Ng, I. & (Huang Ying), I. AI Soc. 36, 319–329 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Rennie, D., Yank, V. & Emanuel, L. JAMA 278, 579–585 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Coghlan, S., Miller, T. & Paterson, J. Phil. & Tech. 34, 15811–606 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Archambault, L., Leary, H. & Rice, K. Educ. Psychol. 57, 178–191 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Syme, P. A Princeton student built an app which can detect if ChatGPT wrote an essay to combat AI-based plagiarism. Business Insider https://www.businessinsider.com/app-detects-if-chatgpt-wrote-essay-ai-plagiarism-2023-1?international=true&r=US&IR=T (2023).

  24. Wiggers, K. OpenAI’s attempts to watermark AI text hit limits. TechCrunch https://techcrunch.com/2022/12/10/openais-attempts-to-watermark-ai-text-hit-limits/?guccounter=1 (2022).

  25. McKinsey & Company. Jobs lost, jobs gained: workforce transitions in a time of automation. www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/industries/public%20and%20social%20sector/our%20insights/what%20the%20future%20of%20work%20will%20mean%20for%20jobs%20skills%20and%20wages/mgi-jobs-lost-jobs-gained-executive-summary-december-6-2017.pdf (2017).

  26. Korinek, A. The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of AI (eds Dubber, M.D., Pasquale, F. & Das, S.) 475–492 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2020).

  27. Srikumar, M. et al. Nat. Mach. Intell. 4, 1061–1064 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank an anonymous reviewer for very helpful and timely suggestions for improvements to an earlier version of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bonavero Institute of Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Sebastian Porsdam Mann

  2. Uehiro Centre of Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Brian D. Earp & Nikolaj Møller

  3. Faculty of Philosophy, Philosophy of Science, and Religious Studies, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany

    Sven Nyholm

  4. School of Law, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland

    John Danaher

  5. Ethox Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Hilary Bowman-Smart

  6. Monash Bioethics Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    Hilary Bowman-Smart & Julian Koplin

  7. School of Philosophical, Historical, and International Studies, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    Joshua Hatherley

  8. Faculty of Law, University of Lucerne, Lucerne, Switzerland

    Monika Plozza

  9. Institute of Health and Social Care, School of Allied and Community Health, London South Bank University, London, UK

    Daniel Rodger

  10. Department of Psychological Sciences, Birkbeck, University of London, London, UK

    Daniel Rodger

  11. Department of Proteomics and Signal Transduction, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Munich, Germany

    Peter V. Treit

  12. Applied AI Corporation, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Gregory Renard

  13. Frontier Development Lab, SETI, NASA, Mountain View, CA, USA

    Gregory Renard

  14. University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA

    Gregory Renard

  15. Department of Bioethics, University of Otago, Dunedin, Otago, New Zealand

    John McMillan

  16. Centre for Biomedical Ethics, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

    Julian Savulescu

Authors
  1. Sebastian Porsdam Mann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brian D. Earp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sven Nyholm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John Danaher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nikolaj Møller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hilary Bowman-Smart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Joshua Hatherley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Julian Koplin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Monika Plozza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Daniel Rodger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Peter V. Treit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Gregory Renard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. John McMillan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Julian Savulescu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

B.D.E. and SPM conceived of the paper. B.D.E., S.P.M., J.D., S.N. & N.M. produced first drafts. All authors provided paragraphs of text and edited drafts.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Sebastian Porsdam Mann or Brian D. Earp.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Machine Intelligence thanks Carolyn Ashurst for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information 1,2

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Porsdam Mann, S., Earp, B.D., Nyholm, S. et al. Generative AI entails a credit–blame asymmetry. Nat Mach Intell 5, 472–475 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-023-00653-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-023-00653-1

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing