IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2406.03823.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Views about ChatGPT: Are human decision making and human learning necessary?

Author

Listed:
  • Eiji Yamamura
  • Fumio Ohtake

Abstract

Using individual-level survey data from 2024, this study investigated how respondent characteristics are associated with a subjective view of generative artificial intelligence (GAI). We asked 14 questions concerning respondents view about GAI, such as general view, faulty GAI, autonomous GEI, GAI replacing humans, and importance of human learning. Regression analysis based on the ordered logit model revealed that: (1) In some cases, the results of smartphone and computer usage times differed. Smartphone usage time was negatively correlated with the importance of human learning, whereas computer usage was not negatively correlated. (2) Managers and ordinary businesspeople have positive views of GAI. However, managers do not show a positive view about GAI being responsible for human decision making. (3) Teachers generally have a negative view about GAI replacing humans and no need of learning. They do not have negative views about GAI producing documents unless GAI is faulty. (4) Medical industry workers positively view GAI if it operates following their direction. However, they do not agree with the view that GAI replaces humans, and that human learning is unnecessary. (5) Females are less likely than men to have a positive view of GAI. In summary, views about GAI vary widely by the individual characteristics and condition of GAI, and by the question set.

Suggested Citation

  • Eiji Yamamura & Fumio Ohtake, 2024. "Views about ChatGPT: Are human decision making and human learning necessary?," Papers 2406.03823, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2406.03823
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2406.03823
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Grazier, S. & Sloane, P.J., 2008. "Accident risk, gender, family status and occupational choice in the UK," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(5), pages 938-957, October.
    2. Chris Stokel-Walker, 2023. "ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: many scientists disapprove," Nature, Nature, vol. 613(7945), pages 620-621, January.
    3. Sarah Sandmann & Sarah Riepenhausen & Lucas Plagwitz & Julian Varghese, 2024. "Systematic analysis of ChatGPT, Google search and Llama 2 for clinical decision support tasks," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-8, December.
    4. Ohtake Fumio & Ohkusa Yasushi, 1994. "Testing the Matching Hypothesis: The Case of Professional Baseball in Japan with Comparisons to the United States," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 204-219, June.
    5. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri, 2012. "Strong Evidence for Gender Differences in Risk Taking," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 50-58.
    6. Powell, Melanie & Ansic, David, 1997. "Gender differences in risk behaviour in financial decision-making: An experimental analysis," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 18(6), pages 605-628, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. García-Meca, Emma & Ramón-Llorens, Maria-Camino & Martínez-Ferrero, Jennifer, 2021. "Are narcissistic CEOs more tax aggressive? The moderating role of internal audit committees," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 223-235.
    2. Luong, Hoa & Khedmati, Mehdi & Nguyen, Lan Anh & Nigmonov, Asror & Ovi, Nafisa Zabeen & Shams, Syed, 2023. "CEO-director ties and board gender diversity: US evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    3. Yating Chuang & John Chung-En Liu, 2020. "Who wears a mask? Gender differences in risk behaviors in the COVID-19 early days in Taiwan," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 40(4), pages 2619-2627.
    4. Michael Breen & Robert Gillanders & Gemma Mcnulty & Akisato Suzuki, 2017. "Gender and Corruption in Business," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(9), pages 1486-1501, September.
    5. Vennis Hong & Sage K Iwamoto & Rei Goto & Sean Young & Sukhawadee Chomduangthip & Natirath Weeranakin & Akihiro Nishi, 2020. "Socio-demographic determinants of motorcycle speeding in Maha Sarakham, Thailand," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(12), pages 1-11, December.
    6. J. François Outreville, 2015. "The Relationship Between Relative Risk Aversion And The Level Of Education: A Survey And Implications For The Demand For Life Insurance," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 97-111, February.
    7. Maximilian Späth & Daniel Goller, 2023. "Gender differences in investment reactions to irrelevant information," CEPA Discussion Papers 67, Center for Economic Policy Analysis.
    8. Milner, Mattie & Rice, Stephen & Rice, Connor, 2019. "Support for environmentally-friendly airports influenced by political affiliation and social identity," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    9. John R. Nofsinger & Corey A. Shank, 2019. "DEEP sleep: The impact of sleep on financial risk taking," Review of Financial Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 92-105, January.
    10. Jongsik Yu, 2019. "Verification of the Role of the Experiential Value of Luxury Cruises in Terms of Price Premium," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-15, June.
    11. Muriel Niederle, 2014. "Gender," NBER Working Papers 20788, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Young Zik Shin & Jeung-Yoon Chang & Kyeongmin Jeon & Hyunpyo Kim, 2020. "Female directors on the board and investment efficiency: evidence from Korea," Asian Business & Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 19(4), pages 438-479, September.
    13. Cornelia Chadi & Uwe Jirjahn, 2019. "Does Society Influence the Gender Gap in Risk Attitudes? Evidence from East and West Germany," Research Papers in Economics 2019-01, University of Trier, Department of Economics.
    14. Steve Agnew & Neil Harrison, 2017. "The Role of Gender, Cognitive Attributes and Personality on Willingness to Take Risks," Business and Economic Research, Macrothink Institute, vol. 7(1), pages 1-16, June.
    15. Eunmi Kim & Sejoong Lee & Joonwhan David Lee, 2018. "Reaching Sustainable Financial Health: Gender Differences in Risk-Taking Patterns of Financially Excluded People," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-15, April.
    16. Rigolini, Alessandra & Gabaldon, Patricia & Le Bruyn Goldeng, Eskil, 2021. "CEO succession with gender change in troubled companies: The effect of a new woman CEO on firm risk and firm risk perceived," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 37(1).
    17. Maria Strydom & Amale Scally & John Watson, 2019. "Impact of mood and gender on individual investors’ reactions to retractions and corrections of earnings forecasts," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(9), pages 941-955, February.
    18. Husam Aldamen & Janice Hollindale & Jennifer L. Ziegelmayer, 2018. "Female audit committee members and their influence on audit fees," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 58(1), pages 57-89, March.
    19. Julie A. Nelson, 2015. "Are Women Really More Risk-Averse Than Men? A Re-Analysis Of The Literature Using Expanded Methods," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 566-585, July.
    20. Skała, Dorota & Weill, Laurent, 2018. "Does CEO gender matter for bank risk?," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 64-74.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2406.03823. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.