To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This article presents a creative writing course incorporating AI, taught at Université Lumière Lyon 2 (France) in September–December 2024. The course combined exploration of LLMs with critical reflection on their use. It drew inspiration from Si Rome n’avait pas chuté by Raphaël Doan (2023), written with ChatGPT 3 and 3.5, which imagines a world where industrialisation began under Nero. Students used ChatGPT to write counterfactual stories or fan fictions: these literary genres are especially useful for creating a three-way relationship between the human writer, the LLM, and an external referent that drives the interaction between the two. The pedagogical progression was structured around three phases: idea generation, narrative structuration, and writing. I generated a prompt live in class: ‘What if Medea had killed Jason instead of her children?’ The students conceived extended chains of prompts to guide the model’s responses and refine narrative variations. Some engaged with contemporary novels, others reimagined Graeco-Roman myths, which will be the scope of this article. Mythological rewritings prove particularly rich for AI-assisted storytelling, revitalising courses on classical myths in a playful, dialectical, and interactive manner. They raise a wide range of ethical issues, especially regarding the sources from which LLMs draw and the content policies that lead to the suppression of certain aspects of ancient literature. Asking ChatGPT to rework classical myths also reveals its tendency to homogenise narratives. This highlights the ongoing need for human oversight: when approached critically, generative AI can provide an effective introduction to classical mythology.
Designers use GenAI tools during bioinspired design (BID) process to understand biological inspiration. We investigate the influence of using ChatGPT with BID on their creative thinking. We present BID stimuli to 30 designers in three modes: BID only, ChatGPT only, and BID + ChatGPT; and record their EEG data across four design phases. Their creativity is analyzed through convergent and divergent thinking (CT and DT), measured by average β and α TRP, respectively. Results show that BID stimuli’s influence on CT and DT is mode and phase dependent, indicating CT and DT as continuous processes.
The recent surge in conversational AI has opened up new avenues for the application of Behavioural Data Science, with Generative AI, particularly LLM models such as ChatGPT, representing a promising platform for analysing human behaviour. This chapter provides an overview of the role of Generative AI models in Behavioural Data Science, highlighting their strengths and limitations. The chapter begins by introducing the principles of Generative AI models and their potential applications in Behavioural Data Science. It discusses the advantages of using Generative AI models to study human behaviour, such as their ability to analyse large volumes of unstructured data and their capacity to learn from interactions with users. The chapter then describes the different ways in which Generative AI models can be used in Behavioural Data Science, such as analysing sentiment, predicting behaviour and generating insights from user interactions. It discusses the challenges associated with using Generative AI models, such as the need for accurate training data and the potential for bias in the model. The chapter also addresses the ethical concerns associated with the use of Generative AI models, such as privacy violations and the potential for unintended consequences. It discusses ways to address these concerns, such as implementing transparency and explainability in Generative AI models. The chapter concludes by discussing the future of Generative AI models in Behavioural Data Science, highlighting the potential for interdisciplinary collaboration with other fields such as psychology and sociology. It emphasises the need for continued development and refinement of Generative AI models and their associated methods for studying human behaviour. This chapter provides an overview of the role of Generative AI models in Behavioural Data Science, highlighting their strengths and limitations. It serves as a valuable resource for researchers and practitioners in the field who are interested in utilising Generative AI models to analyse and understand human behaviour.
The Introduction explains important concepts and what they mean in this book. It also outlines the project scope, which covers both written and spoken uses of machine translation to fulfil communication and information access purposes in one of the sectors selected for analysis. Following a brief historical account of how social conceptions of machine translation have changed, the Introduction addresses a recent shift in translation research towards multilingual communication practices that take place outside education settings or the language services industry. Given how fast language technologies are evolving, it will not take long for the tools and types of human–computer interaction that appear in the book to change quite significantly. The Introduction addresses implications of this dynamic landscape for this book specifically and for translation and multilingual communication research more broadly.
This chapter examines the early integration of generative AI (GenAI), particularly large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, into judicial workflows. Unlike traditional rule-based decision-support systems, GenAI adopts a bottom-up approach, generating insights from vast datasets to assist real-time decision-making. While offering speed and improved access to information, these tools also present challenges that require careful understanding by their users. Using the recent case of a Dutch judge who employed ChatGPT to estimate the lifespan of solar panels, the chapter illustrates how GenAI is already being used in courtrooms. The value of GenAI lies in supporting, not replacing, human judgement. Yet without a clear grasp of how these systems work, including their limitations and potential biases, judges risk relying on opaque or flawed outputs. The ‘black box’ nature of LLMs complicates their responsible use and raises concerns about the balance between efficiency and discretion. The chapter argues that effective integration of GenAI depends not primarily on regulation, but on judicial education and critical awareness of the technology’s capacities and constraints.
Education, including in design, is at a crossroads with the rise of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI). Although its use is exponentially growing, there are concerns that its unreflective use may undermine the development of essential skills. Regarding creativity-specific contexts, its potential to either enhance or constrain cognitive processes and creative confidence remains underexplored. This study investigates ChatGPT’s impact on ideation among User Experience Design students (N = 35), focusing on their cognitive processes, creative confidence and idea creativity. In a within-group experiment, participants generated a total of 214 design concepts under conditions with and without ChatGPT. Data collected included pre-experiment self-report of ChatGPT usage, creative confidence measures, artifacts (sketches, collages, mind maps), experts’ assessment of creativity and post-experiment self-report on creative confidence, ideas and ideation process, along with interviews. Findings indicate that while ChatGPT enhanced convenience and speed, it was associated with dampened cognitive engagement, which may result in an increased reliance on the tool and possible decreased creative confidence, potentially triggering a cycle of dependency and reduced self-efficacy, warranting further longitudinal investigation. We finalize this article with recommendations for design education to integrate metacognitive training and encourage critical evaluation of AI use, thereby empowering novice designers as active, reflective creative thinkers.
AI has changed the process of coding in a very short time, and will have dramatic effects on how modeling is done going forward. With coding skills in hand from previous chapters, this chapter introduces readers to what AI can and cannot do currently. We demonstrate AI capabilities with a simple graphing example, and then introduce a heat-balance model of the greenhouse effect to test AI’s ability to construct general dynamic models. The results lead to a more detailed understanding of how to use AI and how to check and work with its results.
Automated translations can break down language barriers and increase access to information, but they can also be highly inaccurate. This timely book explores the social challenges and ethical considerations of using artificial intelligence (AI) translations in high-stakes professional environments. Based on contributions from over two thousand professionals from critical sectors including healthcare, social work, emergency services and the police, the analysis explores the motivations and consequences of multilingual uses of AI across these sectors. Real-life examples provided throughout the book bring home the delicate balance of risks and benefits of using AI to serve and communicate with multilingual communities. By drawing on concepts such as virtue, trust, empathy and AI literacy, this book makes a case for nuance and flexibility, defends the value of language access, and calls for greater transparency in the development and deployment of AI translation tools. This title is also available as open access on Cambridge Core.
Large Language Models (LLMs) like OpenAI’s ChatGPT or Google’s Gemini are the new sensation in artificial intelligence (AI) research. These systems exhibit impressive conversational abilities and have even managed to convince some people of their possible sentience. But do LLMs actually speak our language, or do they merely appear as if they do? Do they really reason and think, or are they simply good at superficially imitating these abilities? In this chapter, I argue that Wilfrid Sellars’s functionalist-pragmatist approach to language and concept learning might be especially useful in the context of answering the questions above. In particular, conceiving the process of learning and mastering language as analogous to the process of learning to play a game within a set of normative social practices can shed light on the kind of abilities LLMs possess and what we can expect them to do in the future, including becoming genuine members of our linguistic community rather than mere “stochastic parrots.”
This study investigates whether and how interacting with ChatGPT may offer a context that supports perspective shifting and the development of cognitive flexibility, defined as the capacity to move between etic (outsider) and emic (insider) perspectives. Drawing on individual interviews with students enrolled in an advanced university-level Language for Specific Purposes (LSP) French course focused on marketing and advertising in France, this qualitative study examines students’ perspectives on their experiences using ChatGPT to conduct market research on French consumer needs and preferences. The analysis reveals that while students expressed concerns about the legitimacy, authenticity, and cultural positioning of AI-generated content, the interactive and conversational nature of the tool enabled some students to experiment with culturally unfamiliar roles, adopt emerging emic stances, and reflect on the limits of their interpretive frameworks. However, co-creative engagement or shared agency with ChatGPT was not automatic and depended on prompt design, tolerance for ambiguity, and the negotiation of subjective positioning. Rather than facilitating perspective transformation, ChatGPT-supported interactions appeared to foster more modest but meaningful shifts in interpretive positioning and dialectical thinking. The study points to prompt literacy as crucial for fostering more dynamic partnerships with ChatGPT and enabling students to explore alternative perspectives and roles in ways that support the development of intercultural competence in the L2 classroom.
This paper evaluates the performance of baseline and domain-augmented ChatGPT models for literature-based knowledge support in flood susceptibility mapping (FSM) using machine Learning approaches. To assess this, we designed five key questions related to FSM, with benchmark responses derived from our comprehensive review article (Pourzangbar et al., Journal of Flood Risk Management18, e70042), which analyzed 100 studies on ML applications in FSM. The same questions were posed (i) to standard ChatGPT-4 and ChatGPT-4o models without additional contextual material, and (ii) to a domain-augmented GPT-4 configuration (Chat-FSM) equipped with retrieval access to the 100 reviewed articles. The comparison highlights that GPT-based models can reasonably reproduce frequently reported machine learning models and conditioning factors from the reviewed literature, but show weaker consistency in feature selection methods, often suggesting less relevant techniques. Among the models, ChatGPT-4o demonstrated the weakest alignment with benchmark data, while Chat-FSM demonstrated the highest agreement with the benchmark dataset across most evaluated questions. In terms of application-level efficiency, GPT models required substantially less time and computational effort compared to manual literature synthesis under the defined experimental setup. While ChatGPT-based systems can support literature-informed exploration in FSM, human expertise remains essential for critical reasoning, methodological design, and application to novel or context-specific scenarios.
Using the fields of memory studies and digital humanities, this article argues that there has been a shift from more collective and social memory to more personalised and individual memory. This shift, it is argued here, can be conceptualised through the psychoanalytic concept of ‘psychosis’. While the causes of the changes in our patterns of memory have been located in capitalist and neoliberal principles, the effects of the changes in our memory habits might be found in psychosis. From falling in love with machinic AI replicas to indulging in conspiracy theories to acting as if we are social media influencers or backing ourselves to win out in impossible job markets, we are inclined towards personal fantasy, often at the expense of participating in social life. But why do we do this? Why is it easier to believe a farfetched conspiracy theory or wild personal dream than it is to participate socially and collectively in the world we live in? Part of the reason, at least, is found in our increasing habitual reliance on new and emergent technologies. Often presented to us as a brand-new form of Artificial Intelligence, these generative tools are the latest update to a longer pattern in our digital world: the trend of developing ‘relationships’ with algorithms that, to larger and smaller degrees, we come to rely on for habits of cognition and recognition. By affecting our patterns of memory, these technologies produce a kind of isolation that lends itself to individual and fantastical – rather than shared and realist – thinking.
In Chapter 7, “Upgrades in the Age of Generative AI,” we consider the hype around generative AI tools, like ChatGPT, and explain how the razzle-dazzle has captured the public’s imagination, even as the technology hasn’t come close to being artificial general intelligence—the goal companies like OpenAI aspire for. While tech giants race to develop generative AI products, we emphasize that they currently are sophisticated pattern-matching systems that simulate intelligence without truly understanding it. Analyzing both negative (political campaigns) and positive (the possibility of helping doctors communicate more empathetically over patient portals) examples, we offer recommendations for spotting uses of generative AI to avoid and how technological upgrades can be carefully and ethically integrated into communication systems to improve human welfare.
Many writers and musicians believe they can see their own efforts in the works of others, even when no one else can – a phenomenon dubbed projective plagiarism. This psychological illusion is driven by egocentrism and a belief in one’s own uniqueness. At the other extreme are cases in which individuals have plagiarized from the works of others without damage to their reputations. In some instances, this happens because they are held in such high esteem that charges of plagiarism don’t really stick – a phenomenon dubbed Teflon plagiarism. There is also unrepentant plagiarism – writers and musicians who have seemingly appropriated the works of others across their entire careers without apology. But what drives someone to plagiarize? The various excuses offered up by plagiarists are examined, as is the question of whether appropriation correlates with particular personality characteristics. And is plagiarism even deserving of its highly negative reputation? The question of whether the productions of chatbots constitute plagiarism or ghostwriting is considered – even as litigation swirls around the possibility of infringement occurring during the training of chatbots.
The emergence of large language models, exemplified by ChatGPT, has garnered growing attention for their potential to generate feedback in second language writing, particularly automated written corrective feedback (AWCF). In this study, we examined how prompt design – a generic prompt and two domain-specific prompts (zero-shot and one-shot) enriched with comprehensive domain knowledge about written corrective feedback (WCF) – influences ChatGPT’s ability to provide AWCF. The accuracy and coverage of ChatGPT’s feedback across these three prompts were benchmarked against Grammarly, a widely used traditional automated writing evaluation (AWE) tool. We find that ChatGPT’s ability in flagging language errors grew considerably with prompt sophistication driven by the integration of domain-specific knowledge and examples. While the generic prompt resulted in substantially lower performance than Grammarly, the zero-shot prompt achieved comparable results to it and the one-shot prompt surpassed it considerably in error detection. Notably, the most pronounced improvement in ChatGPT’s performance was observed in its detection of frequent error categories, including those of word choice or expression, direct translation, sentence structure and pronoun. Nonetheless, even with the most sophisticated prompt, ChatGPT still displayed certain limitations when compared to Grammarly. Our study has both theoretical and practical implications. Theoretically, it lends empirical evidence to Knoth et al.’s (2024) proposition to separate domain-specific AI literacy from generic AI literacy. Practically, it sheds light on the pedagogical application and technical development of AWE systems.
This chapter takes the distinctive materiality of the modern stage, the homely table, as a way to place two very different productions into conversation: Forced Entertainment’s Table Top Shakespeare and Annie Dorsen’s Prometheus Firebringer. Although these two productions might trace the arc from the residual (telling a story at a table using small household items) to the emergent (a dialogue between an AI-generated reconstruction of a lost Aeschylus play and a narrative composed of citations), they also dramatize an increasing absorption of the human into the apparatus of performance, a possibly fearsome absorption traced through Dorsen’s work, and touching on a range of other contemporary performances, including Mona Pirnot’s I Love You So Much I Could Die.
Extant work shows that generative AI such as GPT-3.5 and perpetuate social stereotypes and biases. A less explored source of bias is ideology: do GPT models take ideological stances on politically sensitive topics? We develop a novel approach to identify ideological bias and show that it can originate in both the training data and the filtering algorithm. Using linguistic variation across countries with contrasting political attitudes, we evaluate average GPT responses in those languages. GPT output is more conservative in languages conservative societies (polish) and more liberal in languages used in liberal ones (Swedish). These differences persist from GPT-3.5 to GPT-4. We conclude that high-quality, curated training data are essential for reducing bias.
Starting from the evolution of the protection of human rights on the internet, the first part of this chapter analyses the proposals for new digital human rights and the methodology of their creation in different forums such as the Council of Europe and European Union as well as related processes in the United Nations Human Rights Council. The second part focuses on the challenges related to the rapid developments in artificial intelligence, such as ChatGPT, for the protection of human rights and regulatory efforts by the Council of Europe, in particular its Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law adopted in 2024 and the Artificial Intelligence Act of the European Union dating from the same year. Both instruments are analysed for their potential to protect human and fundamental rights in particular through new digital human rights. The contribution finds possible complementarity between the two regulatory approaches. Giving several examples, it concludes that there is an ongoing process of the concretisation of new digital human rights, which are mainly but not exclusively based on existing human rights.
The use of large language models (LLMs) has exploded since November 2022, but there is sparse evidence regarding LLM use in health, medical, and research contexts. We aimed to summarise the current uses of and attitudes towards LLMs across our campus’ clinical, research, and teaching sites. We administered a survey about LLM uses and attitudes. We conducted summary quantitative analysis and inductive qualitative analysis of free text responses. In August–September 2023, we circulated the survey amongst all staff and students across our three campus sites (approximately n = 7500), comprising a paediatric academic hospital, research institute, and paediatric university department. We received 281 anonymous survey responses. We asked about participants’ knowledge of LLMs, their current use of LLMs in professional or learning contexts, and perspectives on possible future uses, opportunities, and risks of LLM use. Over 90% of respondents have heard of LLM tools and about two-thirds have used them in their work on our campus. Respondents reported using LLMs for various uses, including generating or editing text and exploring ideas. Many, but not necessarily all, respondents seem aware of the limitations and potential risks of LLMs, including privacy and security risks. Various respondents expressed enthusiasm about the opportunities of LLM use, including increased efficiency. Our findings show LLM tools are already widely used on our campus. Guidelines and governance are needed to keep up with practice. Insights from this survey were used to develop recommendations for the use of LLMs on our campus.
With research showing the benefits of feedback, teachers have come under increasing pressure to provide more, including more personalised, and more detailed responses to students. This often places heavy demands on teachers and with ever-larger class sizes and heavier workloads, teacher fatigue and burn-out are common. Automation has the potential to change all this and new digital resources have already proven to be valuable in supporting L2 writing. In this paper I look at the contribution of Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE) programmes and Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) to feedback. The ability to provide instant local and global feedback across multiple drafts targeted to student needs and in greater quantities promises to increase learner motivation and autonomy while relieving teachers of hours of marking. But haven’t we heard this all before? Are these empty claims which raise our expectations of removing some of the drudgery of mundane grammar correction? Most importantly, what is the role of teachers in all this, and can AI really improve writers and not just texts?