IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/jzde2.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Ask Me Anything! How ChatGPT Got Hyped Into Being

Author

Listed:
  • Bareis, jascha

Abstract

This paper reconstructs how chatbots based on Large language models (LLMs) like ‘ChatGPT’ got hyped into being. It dissects the actors and dynamics that triggered, fueled and disseminated the hype. Through the lens of hype studies the paper interrogates three empirical realms: 1. Company websites where the chatbots are presented, 2. Blog entries and newspaper interviews by prominent tech figures from the Silicon Valley, and 3. New York Times articles in the timespan between November 2022 and August 2024. The paper shows how the chatbot hype is driven by a dynamic between privileged actors (hypers) and a media frenzy both influencing and being carried by society and politics alike. Different interdependent building blocks in the chatbot hype construction are identified: 1. Depicting Large Language Model (LLM) chatbots as knowledge models, 2. Entertaining the uncanny and manipulative side of chatbots, 3. Staging a spectacle of competition between tech giants, and 4. Praising the dualism of doomsday apocalypse or a tech-religious calling for a promised future. The paper unravels the core circulated narrative that turns the hype into a powerful societal phenomenon.

Suggested Citation

  • Bareis, jascha, 2024. "Ask Me Anything! How ChatGPT Got Hyped Into Being," SocArXiv jzde2, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:jzde2
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/jzde2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/6722017db6dda127741b3672/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/jzde2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Frederique Bordignon, 2020. "Self-correction of science: a comparative study of negative citations and post-publication peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1225-1239, August.
    2. Matthew Hutson, 2024. "How does ChatGPT ‘think’? Psychology and neuroscience crack open AI large language models," Nature, Nature, vol. 629(8014), pages 986-988, May.
    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. Yuan Gao & Dokyun Lee & Gordon Burtch & Sina Fazelpour, 2024. "Take Caution in Using LLMs as Human Surrogates: Scylla Ex Machina," Papers 2410.19599, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2024.
    2. Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva & Quan-Hoang Vuong, 2021. "The right to refuse unwanted citations: rethinking the culture of science around the citation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 5355-5360, June.
    3. Brady Lund & Amrollah Shamsi, 2023. "Examining the use of supportive and contrasting citations in different disciplines: a brief study using Scite (scite.ai) data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(8), pages 4895-4900, August.
    4. Linhong Xu & Kun Ding & Yuan Lin, 2022. "Do negative citations reduce the impact of cited papers?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(2), pages 1161-1186, February.
    5. Ivan Heibi & Silvio Peroni, 2021. "A qualitative and quantitative analysis of open citations to retracted articles: the Wakefield 1998 et al.'s case," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(10), pages 8433-8470, October.
    6. Eleonora Alabrese, 2022. "Bad Science: Retractions and Media Coverage," CESifo Working Paper Series 10195, CESifo.
    7. Sergio Copiello, 2020. "Other than detecting impact in advance, alternative metrics could act as early warning signs of retractions: tentative findings of a study into the papers retracted by PLoS ONE," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2449-2469, December.
    8. Linhong Xu & Kun Ding & Yuan Lin & Chunbo Zhang, 2023. "Does citation polarity help evaluate the quality of academic papers?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(7), pages 4065-4087, July.

    More about this item

    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:osf:socarx:jzde2. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.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.