Dr. Casey FieslerThe co-founder of Koko (non-profit that offers peer mental health support) has a Twitter thread (https://twitter.com/RobertRMorris/status/1611450197707464706) about an experiment where they fed requests for help to GPT-3 and help providers could send those AI-generated support messages rather than their own. They found that AI responses were rated higher but also "once people learned the messages were co-created by a machine, it didn’t work." But there have been some interesting questions about the ethics... 🧵 #gpt3
I'm a little confused by this response about informed consent (https://twitter.com/RobertRMorris/status/1611582827224797185) but I think it illustrates a significant problem among some researchers with conflating "research ethics" with "would an IRB allow me to do it" which is potentially really harmful. I would hope that the reason to seek informed consent isn't because a regulatory body forces you to, but because it is the right and ethical thing to do. (2/n)
Rob Morris on Twitter
“@royperlis This would be exempt. The model was used to suggest responses for help providers, who could opt in to use it or not. We didn’t use any PII, all anonymous data, no plan to publish. But MGH's IRB is formidable... Couldn't even use red ink in our study flyers if i recall...”
Iris van Rooij 💭@cfiesler Sadly, too many researchers have no moral compass other than "the law"