Do you think it is ethical to ask ChatGPT, Co-Pilot or oher GenAI products to create PM materials for your specific project?

"If you use ChatGPT output without review or editing, you’re an imbecile" I expect the same is true of output from other Generative AI tools, but I haven't used any. I wrote that yarn more than a year ago and nothing has changed. It can be a useful tool for experts, because validation and editing will be quick. But in the hands of a novice, it could be dangerous if they don't pick up errors. So, having edited the results, should we declare that AI is a "contributor". I'm not sure we're yet at the point where such an honest declaration would be rewarded - would there not be a negative reaction? And how much did the AI contribute?. Do you declare that you used Grammarly or the like to improve your written English? And what would be the reaction if you did? Grammarly can rewrite entire paragraphs, which results in far better English prose than I would normally produce, and yet it is my "work". Perhaps the test is whether you could have produced the result, if you'd spent enough time working on it. That seems a bit weak to me, but right now I don't have another suggestion.

It's interesting that the previous answers pretty much represent the results I'm finding from the survey I'm running on ChatGPT use in Project Management. It's pretty much done and I'm just starting analysis but the answers run the same gamut of opinions as this thread touches on.

Mike,
good diverse discussion on your post.

My view on your questions:

But will it be accurate? No. It is just a snapshot of current knowledge available for my inaccurate question. Had an interesting discussion with ChatGpt on the question if PM process groups form a project life cycle. First it say yes, after some discussion it concedes its no.

Will it be unbiased? Not at all. Not only garbage in - garbage out, but also the context information was initiated by biased humans (mostly white young males from California).

Will it be the same as what you would have written? No, but it lacks my unique thoughts and connections, and the output is often boring.

How do you feel about that? It looks like progress and is exciting.

Is it ethical? Yes, often. The question of ethics always arises and is judged within a specific context and not in general. If you share confident data with AI or the public (how about letting Alexa listen) and deceptively use AI outputs, you, the user, might act unethically.

In the future, AI generative models like ChatGPT will likely become prevalent tools for creating various materials. While using such tools can save time and effort, ethical considerations arise regarding accuracy, bias, and authenticity. It's essential to critically evaluate the outputs to ensure they align with ethical standards and reflect the intended message accurately. To make generated content our own, we must provide clear guidance, review and refine outputs, and incorporate our unique perspective and expertise into the final product. Ultimately, ethical usage involves understanding the capabilities and limitations of AI generative models and employing them responsibly to enhance rather than compromise the integrity of our projects.

AI models can inadvertently perpetuate biases present in their training data, leading to biased or skewed outputs. Additionally, AI-generated content may lack the uniqueness and personalized touch that human-generated content can offer. It's crucial to critically evaluate AI-generated content for biases and ensure that it aligns with ethical standards and organizational values.

When using AI-generated content, it's essential to consider ownership and attribution rights. While AI tools facilitate content creation, project managers should take responsibility for the final output and ensure proper attribution if necessary. It's also essential to understand the terms of service and licensing agreements associated with AI tools to ensure compliance with intellectual property rights.

The ethical use of AI in project management entails transparency, accountability, and responsible decision-making. Project managers should assess the potential risks and benefits of using AI-generated content, considering factors such as accuracy, bias, and privacy implications. Ethical guidelines and best practices should guide the use of AI tools to ensure fair and equitable outcomes.

In conclusion, while AI can offer valuable assistance in creating project management materials, ethical considerations must guide its use. Project managers should critically evaluate AI-generated content for accuracy, bias, and uniqueness, take ownership of the final output, and adhere to ethical guidelines and best practices to ensure responsible use of AI in project management.

There are no arbitrary measurements that would give us objective answers to this. When we look at a painting by Rembrandt or Michelangelo, do we think any less of the artwork if we learn that they both employed many assistants for jobs ranging from mixing paint to painting in sections of the work? When we use a grammar checker like Grammarly or Pro-Writing Aid to rewrite sentences and paragraphs for clarity and better grammar, does that mean it isn't our work anymore? If we let MS Project calculate our complex dependencies and the resulting dates, are we less of a project manager? Why are these things apparently ok, but using ChatGPT (or other GenAI products) is not? Obviously, it's a matter of degree. ChatGPT is useful to a project manager in many ways that do not compromise the work's authenticity and produce a better result. It's very easy to cite ChatGPT as a contributor or source; a link in the main ChatGPT window will give you a citation. But as long as it is treated as a bad thing and blanket policies ban its use, people will be reluctant to surface its use, even if it is legitimate.

Key Questions:

1. Who has control over the content? Who has the final say?

2. Who originates the ideas?

3. Who edits and reviews?

4. What is the proportion of AI vs Human contribution to a final work?

5. What level of mastery does the human have in a topic vs the AI?

6. Is ChatGPT a source of information (facts etc), a source of text to reword, amplify or reduce author's text or an editorial tool?

If I generate the primary content/central idea for the content, I have strong competency in project management, and the level of AI content in the final product is relatively low because I've reviewed and edited it to fit my overall purpose, then I don't see any reason to cite ChatGPT any more than I would acknowledge using a grammar checker and an online encyclopedia.

One last use case: if I update a project schedule and paste an image or data to ChatGPT to analyse the differences between this one and the previous one, which I then check for accuracy and edit for my project report, do you think ChatGPT should be cited as a contributor?