DANGERS IN THE USE OF AI

While Generative AI can immensely enhance cognitive and extrapolative processes for academics and authors, the application of Generative AI also summons the possibility of risks and pathways through which to abuse crucial academic (and other) integrity.   

Such pathways associated with the use of Generative AI tools include: 

1. Bias and the Distortion of Accuracy: The tools of Generative AI operate on probability, and draw on such probability to form conclusions. Anthropology is at times factual and at times seeks to elicit data that is unique to respective contexts, the possibility contesting or opposing the intentions of Generative AI We note that in anthropological work, both in the form of data and in the representation of this data (analysis, the text), the use of AI can hence be highly problematic and misrepresentational. Such a false representation of data and text is disallowed by the GLOCAL and its publications, as it is through GLOCAL mandate by its networks and other projects.

2. Accountability for Data and Theory: Anthropology, and more so, Linguistic Anthropology, prioritizes agency for social, cultural, linguistic, and cognitive processes. Generative AI often refuses to acknowledge and more so assign such accountability to the source of knowledge and process, and simply elicits averages of large amounts of text. 

3. Violation of the Protection of Intellectual Texts: Generative AI is appropriated by platforms that seek to capitalize from the tool, and as such can compromise the privacy rights of those to whom such intellectual property belongs. This then becomes an issue of breach of confidentiality, copyright, and a risk in data security.  

4. Intellectual growth and the Impediment of Intellectual Growth: The growth of the author and reader are largely predicated on the efforts of these parties to seek knowledge and to resolve uncertainties and problems with regards to understanding the sources and pathways of this knowledge. Similarly, the text in anthropology constitutes a central part of methodology. By resorting to the creation of text by tools of Generative AI, the author and reader reduce the quality of text and thought, and relegate these processes to mechanical processes that rob the human agent of opportunities to develop themselves intellectually and to contribute to the significant and progressive work that is Linguistic Anthropology. 

THE AUTHOR

At times when the human produces a text in Linguistic and Sociocultural Anthropology, such a text is by definition an account of the direct experience of the writer / researcher at an Anthropological capacity. As such, by producing the text, the author claims to have experienced that which the author writes, and in the process, the text should have Anthropological originality, validity, legitimacy, and integrity.

In the appropriation of Generative AI tools, authors must uphold a high level of adherence to such ethical principles, which the GLOCAL and its publications, projects, media, networks, and councils all demand.

While the complete omission of Generative AI tools is arduous, and while these tools can contribute to the betterment of author and scholarship, limited assistance that is devoid of the final publication process may be beneficial to the author. We note that authors may wish to draw on tools of Generative AI to assist in the following areas:

– Elicitation of knowledge pathways not possible through other means
– Exposure to discourse and discursive genres of respective theorists and genres
– Dialogue with texts online, through critical approaches to the use of Generative AI tools.
– The classification of knowledge in ways not known to the author as a sole agent or without the assistance of such technologies. 

Authors to the GLOCAL JALA and its other journals and publications are fully required by the GLOCAL to ensure that the submitted texts meet the required standards of its rigorous assessment, and the authors must hence adhere to primary rules, such as the avoidance of Generative AI tools to create work.

By engaging in the use of Generative AI tools and by refusing to acknowledge such use, authors are reflexively engaging in the malpractice of false representation. By submitting an article under a specific author’s name, the author automatically admits to this authorship, as per the submission policy and agreement at the time of submission. Should the author then submit a text that is created by other human agents or by any such tools, the author will be seen as having committed plagiarism and having engaged in false representation. In addition to this, any false representation emanating from elsewhere must be acknowledged by the author, as must be the source of this knowledge, partly owing to a possible falsification of knowledge by any party, which the author should guard themselves against, should this at any point arise authorship requires taking accountability for content, consenting to publication via a publishing agreement, and giving contractual assurances about the integrity of the work, among other principles. These are uniquely human responsibilities that cannot be undertaken by Generative AI tools.

At times, there is an intended announcement of the use of Generative AI and its tools. At times when authors wish to do so, such use must be clearly explicated in the processes in which this will occur. For example, researchers and authors may wish to research the potential of AI in data collection, or they may wish to compare data sets across AI / human agent boundaries. This statement must be foregrounded with clarity at the onset of the author-GLOCAL engagement, as the GLOCAL JALA and other systems are set up to automatically block any such texts, prior to submission. Furthermore, the authors must make a strong case for the appropriate and effective use of Generative AI tools. Following such an initial admission, the GLOCAL editors will then engage with  the author to request further information as to the use of the non-human generated text. Throughout, however, the GLOCAL editors reserve every authority to deny progress of the text and to decide that the text violates intellectual fairness and ownership. However, the author should be aware that the GLOCAL JALA, and all GLOCAL parts always have the advancement of the author as a priority. GLOCAL will maintain its just position as a regulator of these technologies, intellectual processes, and mandates. 

As a guideline, the following are instances in which Generative AI tools are strictly forbidden, as they permit the author to renounce responsibility for the production of knowledge and texts:.

– the generation of texts or knowledge without correct, thorough, and transparent acknowledgement
–  the fabrication or production of data that reduces the quality of current data
– the non-original creation of texts as Anthropological, and thus using the Generative AI tool to make assumptions as to the complexities and cultural and linguistic specificities of the context
– the falsification of data and sources in order to compensate for what would others represent rigorous research and analysis 

The GLOCAL takes a firm stance against the use and implementation of Generative AI, and as such, will not accept any such submissions that claim to be original. These texts are considered to be in any form of media, in any genre, and across all scholarships, though these must pertain to Linguistic Anthropology in some way.  

REVIEWERS

The GLOCAL selects and assigns all reviewers and peer reviewers so as to optimize all publication and research processes, and to maximize the opportunity of all scholar authors to pass the review stage, and to grow as scholars of Linguistic Anthropology and pertinent fields.

In order to ensure that these reviewers are of the highest calibre, these reviewers are not permitted to draw on assisted technologies such as Generative AI tools in order to review work submitted to the GLOCAL for consideration.

Similarly, the GLOCAL will not tolerate the violation of copyrighted intellectual property, and the established trust between the author and reviewer, which is one of absolute and unnegotiable anonymity of person and property. The reviewers will not at any stage draw on the use of Generative AI technologies to deceive authors, editors, or the GLOCAL as a whole into believing that their work is of human origin and creation. As such, the reviewers shall not compromise their accountability and in the process shall not compromise the privacy of the intellectual property and stance of the author.  

EDITORS

As the Global body for Linguistic Anthropology, the GLOCAL foregrounds the creation of dynamic text that documents the junctures of language and anthropology, in all of their entirety and extent. The GLOCAL engages editors at many levels to ensure that it maintains such high quality, and is perpetually seeking to strengthen this quality and academic integrity. By resorting to Generative AI tools, editors refute all efforts by the GLOCAL to increase the dynamic character of these texts, and to contribute to the proposed originality of anthropological texts and ideas. Furthermore, the editors must themselves have some level of expertise in linguistic anthropology, and through the editing process, draw on human cognition to reshape the text so as to strengthen the discourse. 

Similarly, the GLOCAL will not tolerate actions of editors at times when they allow access to any public systems, such as Generative AI tools to the private property or authors, or to work with the GLOCAL that must maintain the highest level of confidentiality. Such an infringement of rights will be acted upon by the GLOCAL and other governing bodies so as to immediately rectify any damage to authors, the GLOCAL and other parties and bodies, and to intellectual property.

Throughout all processes, the EIC will make objective judgements as to the process and outcome of any debates and problems.