#记录我的2024#
Quick guide
According to a survey conducted by Elsevier, about one-third of researchers have already incorporated ChatGPT into their work. The survey also showed that 41% of researchers had a positive view of the progress of AI tools, while 48% were ambivalent and only 1% had a negative view of AI. Researchers generally believe that AI will play an important role in their work in the future, while also acknowledging the potential benefits of AI in areas such as teaching, research, and scholarly publishing. However, some have expressed concerns about the limitations of AI, particularly in terms of replacing human creativity, judgment and empathy, as well as issues such as regulation, accountability and producing inaccurate outputs.
Researchers' adoption of ChatGPT
According to a major survey, nearly one-third of researchers have incorporated ChatGPT into their work. In a study conducted by Elsevier, a well-known academic publisher, more than 2,200 researchers around the world participated, 31% of whom said they utilized this generative AI tool in their professional work.
Researchers' attitudes towards the development of artificial intelligence
According to the Elsevier report, 41% of researchers expressed positive sentiment about the advancement of AI tools, including generative AI. In contrast, 48 per cent were ambivalent, while 10 per cent remained unsure. Only a negligible 1% of respondents expressed negative sentiment towards AI.
Perceptions on the impact of AI in research
The survey conducted by Elsevier also highlights that 74% of researchers believe that AI will play a transformative or important role in shaping their work in the near future. In addition, researchers generally acknowledge the potential benefits of AI in various fields such as teaching, research, and scholarly publishing. However, 39% of respondents expressed concerns about the limitations of AI, especially when it comes to replacing human creativity, judgment and empathy. In addition, issues involving a lack of regulation, accountability, and the production of inaccurate or absurd outputs have also raised concerns for a significant portion of researchers.