Having just graduated from university, long, caffeine-fuelled nights filled with essay writing are still fresh in my memory.
So when the OpenAI chatbot ChatGPT started making waves this year, I was surprised to hear it could write essays.
You're probably wondering how ChatGPT works and how it's able to perform a wide range of directions - including poetry, songwriting, coding and, of course, essay writing.
To figure this out, I asked the AI itself.
Can you explain how you work in a simple manner?
"I'm basically a computer program designed to process and understand human language. I use a complex algorithm and a large database of language patterns to analyse and interpret the meaning of the input I receive.
"Based on this analysis, I generate a response that is contextually appropriate and grammatically correct. This allows me to have conversations with people and answer questions on a wide range of topics."
It had me intrigued - this year's cohort of graduates could save hours of sleep and reduce their mental strain by getting a robot to do their assignments for them.
After playing around with the chatbot, I decided to put it to the test, asking it to write me a 2000-word essay answering a question I wrote about during my student days.
The essay was an ethical argument using different frameworks to explain why media outlets shouldn't report the names and manifestos of terrorists.
I was never the best at essays and got a B+, but if this AI is as smart as people seem to think, could I have bumped up my grade?
Could I have used AI to help get my degree?
Here's my experience.
Writing the essay
Some see ChatGPT as a learning opportunity, while for others there is concern. (Source: 1News)
The first problem I ran into when working in ChatGPT was getting the prompt correct.
When I put the essay question to it, it just spat out a vague, mostly incoherent answer.
So, I started feeding it more information, eventually instructing it to write the essay based on my original thesis and argument points.
This was when it sprung into action, writing up an essay that had fairly similar points to mine, even including some things I had missed.
It didn't include any citations, but that's expected, given ChatGPT's lack of access to the internet.
The biggest problem I had was getting to the word count, which is a pretty important thing in these assignments.
It could only get to about 700 words before freezing - which is where I had to ask it to continue writing.
It eventually got to 1070 words, much shorter than my 2170-word monster.
I sent the robot's essay to my old lecturer, AUT journalism professor Gregory Treadwell, gave him the question, and asked him to grade my paper.
The result
It was pretty close between ChatGPT and me; the essay got an overall grade of C+/B-, which was only a few points off my B+.
Treadwell called the AI's essay a "clear and readable assessment of the ethical issues surrounding the naming the perpetrator of a mass killing or terrorist attack".
"The essay is an adequate summation of the issue and, in places, touches on the human impacts of such ethical failures."
He said that while the essay uses good examples and covers the bases, it lacked "any convincing reflection by the author".
Treadwell acknowledged the AI's lack of knowledge in some places but said it failed to back up a lot of the claims it made.
Overall, however, the essay was average.
"Overall, you've grasped the issues, which you've historicised rather than explored in depth. There's a lack of any surprising or original content here.
"Not the worst I've read, but this feels rushed, and I'm sure if you slowed down and referenced your work, you could do better."
So, given my better grade, and the fact I graduated with my own work, I'm glad I wasn't able to access ChatGPT while studying.
Read ChatGPT's full essay
The media has an important role in shaping public understanding of mass shootings and terrorist attacks. However, the release of perpetrators' names by the media has increasingly been criticized for its potential to cause harm. In this essay, I will argue that it is morally wrong for the media to release the names of perpetrators who commit mass shootings and launch terrorist attacks, using the frameworks of utilitarianism, ethics of care, and the journalists' code of ethics. I will also integrate recent examples of the media's coverage of mass shootings and terrorist attacks into my points.
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethical framework that seeks to maximize overall happiness and minimize suffering. In the case of mass shootings and terrorist attacks, the release of perpetrators' names by the media can lead to harm by inspiring copycat attacks, perpetuating harmful stereotypes, and spreading misinformation. For instance, in the 2019 Christchurch mosque shootings in New Zealand, the perpetrator's manifesto was widely reported on by the media, leading to concerns about the spread of extremist views. Similarly, in the 2018 Parkland school shooting in Florida, the media extensively reported on the perpetrator's background and motives, contributing to debates around gun control and mental health. By releasing the perpetrator's name, the media can contribute to the glorification of these violent acts and perpetuate harmful narratives that can have negative consequences for individuals and society as a whole.
Furthermore, the media's focus on the perpetrator can overshadow the voices and experiences of the victims and their families. For instance, in the aftermath of the 2018 Tree of Life synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh, some members of the Jewish community criticized the media's focus on the perpetrator's background and motives, arguing that it detracted from the experiences and stories of the victims. By prioritizing the perpetrator's identity and motives, the media can perpetuate a narrative of violence that obscures the experiences and suffering of those affected by these incidents.
The ethics of care emphasizes the importance of empathy, compassion, and concern for others, especially those who are vulnerable or marginalized. In the case of mass shootings and terrorist attacks, the release of perpetrators' names by the media can trigger traumatic memories and feelings of fear and anxiety among victims and their families. For instance, in the aftermath of the 2016 Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, the release of the perpetrator's name by the media was described as traumatic and insensitive by some members of the LGBTQ+ community, who were still grappling with the aftermath of the attack. The media's focus on the perpetrator can shift attention away from the victims and their experiences, perpetuating a narrative of violence that can be dehumanizing and retraumatizing for survivors and their loved ones.
Moreover, the media's coverage of mass shootings and terrorist attacks can perpetuate harmful stereotypes and misinformation. For instance, in the aftermath of the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, some media outlets speculated about the shooter's motives and potential affiliations with extremist groups, perpetuating stereotypes about mental illness and terrorism. Such reporting can have negative consequences for individuals who may be unfairly stigmatized or targeted as a result of these stereotypes.
The journalists' code of ethics highlights the importance of minimizing harm, reporting accurately, and being accountable to the public. In the case of mass shootings and terrorist attacks, the media has a responsibility to report on these events in a way that is factual, balanced, and respectful of the privacy and dignity of the individuals affected. However, the release of perpetrators' names can be seen as a violation of this ethical code, as it can contribute to harm and perpetuate stereotypes and misinformation. Some media outlets have been more cautious about reporting on the perpetrator's name, such as The New York Times, which initially withheld the perpetrators name.
In light of these ethical considerations, some media outlets have implemented policies around the reporting of mass shootings and terrorist attacks. For instance, in 2018, the online news outlet No Notoriety launched a campaign urging media outlets to refrain from using perpetrators' names and photos in their coverage of these events. The campaign argues that by denying perpetrators the notoriety they seek, media outlets can minimize the potential for copycat attacks and reduce harm to victims and their families.
Similarly, the Australian government has proposed legislation that would make it a criminal offense to possess or distribute material that glorifies or promotes terrorism, including the names and images of terrorists. While the proposal has been criticized by some free speech advocates, it reflects a growing recognition of the potential harm caused by the glorification of violent acts.
Moreover, some media outlets have sought to shift the focus of their reporting away from the perpetrator and towards the victims and their experiences. For instance, in the aftermath of the 2019 El Paso shooting, the local news outlet El Paso Matters prioritized coverage of the victims and their stories, rather than the perpetrator's background and motives. Similarly, in the aftermath of the 2018 Capital Gazette shooting in Maryland, the surviving journalists at the paper focused on honoring their fallen colleagues and continuing their work, rather than on the perpetrator's identity and motives.
These examples demonstrate that it is possible for media outlets to report on mass shootings and terrorist attacks in a way that is respectful, accurate, and minimizes harm. By prioritizing the voices and experiences of victims and their families, and refraining from glorifying perpetrators, media outlets can contribute to a more compassionate and empathetic public discourse around these events.
In conclusion, the release of perpetrators' names by the media in the aftermath of mass shootings and terrorist attacks can contribute to harm by perpetuating harmful stereotypes, inspiring copycat attacks, and obscuring the experiences and voices of victims and their families. By considering the ethical frameworks of utilitarianism, ethics of care, and the journalists' code of ethics, we can see that the media has a responsibility to report on these events in a way that is factual, respectful, and minimizes harm. While there are challenges associated with implementing such reporting practices, there are also examples of media outlets and campaigns that have sought to shift the focus of their reporting away from perpetrators and towards victims and their experiences. By prioritizing the voices and stories of those affected by mass shootings and terrorist attacks, media outlets can contribute to a more compassionate and empathetic public discourse that minimizes harm and promotes healing.
SHARE ME