Volk Sophia Charlotte, Schäfer Mike S, Lombardi Damiano, Mahl Daniela, Yan Xiaoyue
University of Zurich, Switzerland.
Public Underst Sci. 2025 Feb;34(2):132-153. doi: 10.1177/09636625241268910. Epub 2024 Sep 29.
Generative artificial intelligence in general and ChatGPT in particular have risen in importance. ChatGPT is widely known and used increasingly as an information source for different topics, including science. It is therefore relevant to examine how ChatGPT portrays science and science-related issues. Research on this question is lacking, however. Hence, we simulate "interviews" with ChatGPT and reconstruct how it presents science, science communication, scientific misbehavior, and controversial scientific issues. Combining qualitative and quantitative content analysis, we find that, generally, ChatGPT portrays science largely as the STEM disciplines, in a positivist-empiricist way and a positive light. When comparing ChatGPT's responses to different simulated user profiles and responses from the GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 versions, we find similarities in that the scientific consensus on questions such as climate change, COVID-19 vaccinations, or astrology is consistently conveyed across them. Beyond these similarities in substance, however, pronounced differences are found in the personalization of responses to different user profiles and between GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.
一般而言，生成式人工智能尤其是ChatGPT的重要性日益凸显。ChatGPT广为人知，并且越来越多地被用作包括科学在内的不同主题的信息来源。因此，研究ChatGPT如何描绘科学及与科学相关的问题很有必要。然而，目前缺乏关于这个问题的研究。因此，我们模拟了与ChatGPT的“访谈”，并重构了它如何呈现科学、科学传播、科研不当行为以及有争议的科学问题。通过结合定性和定量内容分析，我们发现，总体而言，ChatGPT很大程度上以实证主义-经验主义的方式并以积极的视角将科学描绘为STEM学科。在比较ChatGPT对不同模拟用户档案的回复以及GPT-3.5和GPT-4版本的回复时，我们发现它们存在相似之处，即对于气候变化、新冠疫苗接种或占星术等问题的科学共识在它们之间得到了一致的传达。然而，除了这些实质上的相似之处外，在针对不同用户档案的回复个性化以及GPT-3.5和GPT-4之间还发现了明显的差异。
