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

It isn't a question of ethics when a PM uses AI to generate a document or do some other work. What is important is reviewing the outcome and owning it, irrespective of whether the outcome is positive or negative. Lets look at it this way - A PM might use a macro to do some financials, instead of manual calculations, and that would not be unethical even if the PM has not declared the use of macros, and similarly if the tool in question is AI, it does not become unethical. It still is the PM doing the work, provided the PM stays accountable.

You make a very good point about data privacy, Dr. Deepa, something not everyone considers as they ask a question with content that could expose their organization.

In this age of cyber criminals, any piece of information can potentially be used for nefarious purposes!

100 % Agree with this comment, I used to improve grammar or writing flow, however most of the times kill my humanity and writing style. Also 100% is about integrity!

Thanks for the additional item, George. I agree these sections out of the PMI Code of Ethics apply to the use of GenAI in project management. Of course, what is generated could be a half-truth and will very often be out of context, which could result in errors and omissions.

The well worn saying, "A fool with a tool is still a fool." surely applies here. Blind use of GenAI output without review and modification for accuracy, completeness and context would surely make the person doing so an [unethical] fool.

George, using a tool to ease our work might not be unethical. I might create a project document using a Macro or AI, it is upto me. What matters is the project document & its accuracy. Information about the tool used to create project documentation might be out of context (this could be debatable though). However, the responsibility for errors / omissions in the output document is entirely ours. And once those have creeped in, we're required to take ownership and make corrections promptly. That according to me is in line wiht the PMI code of Ethics: Honesty & Responsibility.

You draw an interesting parallel between GenAI and Low Code/No Code, Sergio.

While code is generated with Low Code/No Code applications, I would guess that few people take the time to read it to understand whether it might be riddled with bugs. They likely rely more upon the outcome of the code, such whether as an input gathering form is usable and the resulting updating of a data store accurate.

Even the low code no code tools use AI in the background. So whatever system is at work, human-in-the-loop is important. We can depend on the tools to make our lives easier but the accountability of the output / outcomes of the tools would be ours. Even the confidence scores are calculated based on certain parameters/data that could have an inherent bias, and hence the confidence scores may not be accurate. Complete dependence on AI systems (low code no code included) is not the way to go.

Humans tend to be biased, and so are the AI systems, but what makes humans better is the fact that they understand that they could be biased, but AI systems / models do not, and that intelligence is what sets humans apart. So yes, we could use tools to ease our work and that would not be unethical, but we'd have to take accountability of the outcomes, and so reviewing the output of the tools is our responsibility. And then we retain the right to claim that the contribution is ours.