Tag: research

Consistent with the UTA Advice on Generative AI, there are general and contextual understandings on the appropriate, shortcomings/potential risks, and prohibited use of GAI in research.  Fundamentally, there must be an understanding that AI is a Technology Tool and that there are safeguards or prohibitions on the use of AI as it relates to the privacy, security, and confidentiality of data GAI may use or contribute to in public domain or within a secure environment.  Therefore, in principle: 

• Use and develop GAI tools in a manner that is ethical, transparent, and mitigates potential biases.  One should note the known biases of using AI.  For example, NIST’s report on Statistical, Human, and Systemic Biases in AI.  
  • Bias in data. Bias in data, and consequently bias in the AI system’s output, could be a major issue because Generative AI is trained on large datasets that you usually can’t access or assess, and may inadvertently learn and reproduce biases, stereotypes, and majority views present in these data. Moreover, many Generative AI models are trained with overwhelmingly English texts, Western images and other types of data. Non-Western or non-English speaking cultures, as well as work by minorities and non-English speakers are seriously underrepresented in the training data. Thus, the results created by Generative AI are definitely culturally biased. This should be a major consideration when assessing whether Generative AI is suitable for your research.
• Use and develop GAI tools in a manner that promotes institutional and research integrity, including scientific rigor and reproducibility. Do not rely on GAI tools in the stead of your own critical thinking and sound judgment.
  • Ethical issues. Data privacy is more complicated with Generative AI when you don’t know for sure what Generative AI does with your input data. Transparency and accountability about the Generative AI’s operations and decision making processes can be difficult when you operate a closed-source system.
  • Plagiarism. Generative AI can only generate new contents based on, or drawn from, the data that it is trained on. Therefore, there is a likelihood that they will produce outputs that are similar to the training data, even to the point of being regarded as plagiarism if the similarity is too high. As such, you should confirm (e.g. by using plagiarism detection tools) that Generative AI outputs are not plagiarized but instead “learned” from various sources in the manner humans learn without plagiarizing. 
• Users of GAI are responsible and accountable for any actions or outcomes that result from their use and development of GAI tools.
  • AI hallucination. Generative AI can produce outputs that are factually inaccurate or entirely incorrect, uncorroborated, nonsensical or fabricated. These phenomena are dubbed “hallucinations”. Therefore, it is essential for you to verify Generative AI-generated output with reliable and credible sources.

• GenAI Tools may be used with data that is publicly available or defined as Public by UTA’s Data Classification Standard (Login required).
• In all cases, GenAI Tools use must be consistent with UTA’s and other relevant policies.
  • Any use of GenAI tools installed on a computer controlled by UTA or under a vendor contract that specifically protects university data and its use in the AI model may be designated as a permittable tool for use with non-public data classifications in accordance with relevant policies.
• The Michigan Institute for Data Science (MIDAS) at the University of Michigan provides multiple examples of Research Use of Generative AI to consider in the areas of Autonomous Research Workflow, Coding, Data Analysis and Visualization, Data Labeling, Structure and Molecule Design, Image Generation, and Technical and Layman Writing.  
  • MIDAS also provides guidance for:
    • Using GAI for Research Writing
    • Using GAI for Improving Research Productivity
    • Choosing GAI Models in Research

In any use of GAI, there should be self-awareness and recognition that AI is a tool for research.  It is a tool of human design and use like any technology.  It does not supplant nor surpass human oversight or context of being an independent tool used by humans for its’ benefit.  Therefore, in principle:

• Be alert to the potential for research misconduct (i.e., data falsification, data fabrication, and/or plagiarism) when using and developing GAI tools.  Knowing the methods and data collection use in GAI. 
• Disclose use of GAI tools when appropriate or required (e.g., a journal that will accept a manuscript developed using GAI, provided such use is disclosed).
• Ensure any experimental data used in connection with an GAI tool are accurate, relevant, legally obtained and, when applicable, have the consent of the individuals from whom the data were obtained.
• Make sure you can clearly explain how any GAI tools you create were developed (e.g., describe the data and machine learning models or deep learning algorithms used to train a Large Language Model AI tool).
  • Prompt Engineering. The advent of Generative AI has created a new human activity – prompt engineering – because the quality of Generative AI responses is heavily influenced by the user input or ‘prompt’. There are courses dedicated to this concept (see our “other training” page). However, you will need to experiment with how to craft prompts that are clear, specific and appropriately structured so that Generative AI will generate the output with the desired style, quality and purpose.
  • Knowledge Cutoff Date. Many Generative AI models are trained on data up to a specific date, and are therefore unaware of any events or information produced beyond that. For example, if a Generative AI is trained on data up to March 2019, they would be unaware of COVID-19 and the impact it had on humanity, or who is the current monarch of Britain. You need to know the cutoff date of the Generative AI model that you use in order to assess what research questions are appropriate for its use.
• Be mindful of how sampling bias in training data and difficulties in interpreting output can be significant roadblocks for the ethical and transparent usage of GAI.
• Make sure any GAI tools you use or develop are subject to human oversight (e.g., humans are involved in the design, development, and testing of the tool).
• Subject any GAI tools you develop with rigorous quality control measures (e.g., test for accuracy and reliability).
• Exercise caution regarding vendor claims about GAI-enabled products, as definitions of GAI and how it is implemented may vary. GAI-enhanced products may not always outperform non-GAI alternatives.
  • Model Continuity. When you use Generative AI models developed by external entities / vendors, you need to consider the possibility that one day the vendor might discontinue the model. This might have a big impact on the reproducibility of your research. 

• Privacy, Security, and Rules Apply to GAI Tools – be cognizant to identify and protect the privacy and security of individuals when using and developing GAI tools.
  • Security. As with any computer or online system, a Generative AI system is susceptible to security breaches and malicious attacks. For example, a new type of attack, prompt injection, deliberately feeds harmful or malicious contents into the system to manipulate the results that it generates for users. Generative AI developers are designing processes and technical solutions against such risks (for example, see OpenAI’s GPT4 System Card and disallowed usage policy. But as a user, you also need to be aware what is at risk, follow guidelines of your local IT providers, and do due diligence with the results that a Generative AI creates for you.
• Do not use GAI tools when prohibited (e.g., a sponsor that does not allow use of GAI for peer review).
• Do not provide or share intellectual property or confidential/sensitive data with GAI tools that incorporate users’ content into their publicly accessible models.
• Report any potential data breaches or confidentiality lapses involving GAI tools to the appropriate UTA authority.
• Any acquisition, deployment, or agreement involving a vendor or vendor product using GAI must follow UTA’s established legal, information security, audit, and procurement rules.
• In general, student records subject to FERPA, health information, proprietary information, and any other information classified as Confidential or Controlled under UTA’s Data Classification Standards must not be used within public AI models.

Gen AI Tools of any sort cannot be used for any activity that would be illegal, unethical, fraudulent or violate any state or federal law or UTA or UT System policies.

National Science Foundation (NSF)

The National Science Foundation recently announced in its “Notice to Research Community:  Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Technology in the NSF Merit Review Process” that NSF reviewers are prohibited from uploading any proposal content or review records to non-approved GAI tools (they must be behind NSF’s firewall) out of concern for potential violations of confidentiality and integrity principles of the merit review process. Use of GAI in NSF proposals should be indicated in the project description. Specifically, it states: “Proposers are responsible for the accuracy and authenticity of their proposal submission in consideration for merit review, including content developed with the assistance of generative AI tools. NSF’s Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG) addresses research misconduct, which includes fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing or performing NSF-funded research, or in reporting results funded by NSF. Generative AI tools may create these risks, and proposers and awardees are responsible for ensuring the integrity of their proposal and reporting of research results.”

National Institutes of Health (NIH)

NIH has issued a Notice: The Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Technologies is Prohibited for NIH Peer Review Process along with a set of FAQs for the Use of Generative AI in Peer Review. Although NIH specifically prohibits GAI in the peer review process, they do not prohibit the use of GAI in grant proposals. They state an author assumes the risk of using an AI tool to help write an application, noting “[…] when we receive a grant application, it is our understanding that it is the original idea proposed by the institution and their affiliated research team.” If AI generated text includes plagiarism, fabricated citations or falsified information, the NIH “will take appropriate actions to address the non-compliance.”

GAI should not be listed as a co-author, but the use of Generative AI should be disclosed in papers, along with a description of the places and manners of use. Typically, such disclosures will be in a “Methods” section of the paper. See the Committee on Publication Ethics’ Authorship and AI tools webpage for more information. If you rely on GAI output, you should cite it. Good citation style recommendations have been suggested by the American Psychological Association (APA) and the Chicago Manual of Style.