Search

Copyright of Die Urologie is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper examines the problem of hallucinations in four scientific articles generated by ChatGPT-4 from various sub-fields of business administration. Specifically, the aim is to check whether the references generated by ChatGPT exist and, if this is the case, whether they are correct. A first surprising result is that nearly 40 Prozent of the 174 sources referenced in the articles, whose bibliographic details were listed after the individual main chapters, were not included in the specially for each article generated bibliography. A check of the bibliographic entries revealed that between 18 % and 100 % of the sources in the individual articles could not be found with Google Scholar. Furthermore, half of the sources found were incorrect to varying degrees (wrong document type, wrong journal name, wrong page reference). On average, only a quarter of the bibliographic references were completely correct. In Web of Science, only a quarter of the sources could be verified, but most of them were correct. The above results show that ChatGPT-4 – besides ethical and legal concerns – should definitely not be used for writing scientific papers, as a large proportion of the references generated by ChatGPT (valid at the time of writing this paper) does not exist or is partially incorrect. Furthermore, it can be assumed that some of the article texts generated are also "invented" or come from unreferenced sources (plagiarism). Texts generated by ChatGPT must therefore be subject to a comprehensive review, which may not always be easy. The authors therefore agree with the recommendation of Gimpel et al. (2023) that ChatGPT should primarily be used as a supplement to writing (e. g., spell-checking, creating summaries, supporting the generation of ideas). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Die Nutzung von KI-Anwendungen zur Textgenerierung wie ChatGPT, Bing oder Bard im DaF-Unterricht eröffnet vielfältige Möglichkeiten zur Förderung von Mediationskompetenzen. Diese Studie untersucht die bedeutsame Rolle von KI-Generierungstools bei der Erweiterung der Mediationsprozesse im DaF-Unterricht. Im Fokus steht die Bereicherung der gemeinsamen Bedeutungskonstruktion durch KI-generierte Texte, die ein tieferes Verständnis der Sprache in ihrem kulturellen Kontext ermöglichen. Anhand von vier anschaulichen Anwendungsbeispielen wird die integrative Kraft von KI-Tools im Lehrprozess aufgezeigt und ihr Potenzial zur Stärkung der Mediationskompetenz verdeutlicht.

Copyright of Projekt-Management Aktuell is the property of Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH & Co.KG and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Unterrichtswissenschaft (Springer Science & Business Media B.V.) is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Computer und Recht is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

"ChatGPT may produce inaccurate information about people, places, or facts," Open AI warns when using its chatbot. Being able to assess this unreliability is part of AI literacy, which recently became a future skill at university, understood as a precondition for future careers. The article offers an error typology, which is linked to AI's technical functionality. Twenty categories of flaws in AI information are assigned to three fields of causative factors: training data, generation process, and programming. Additionally, a paradoxical mechanism pattern in user psychology is outlined – automation bias vs. Eliza effect –, and Harry Frankfurt's concept of "bullshit" is introduced, which seems tailor-made for AI information. Some error types, especially those caused in the generation process itself, must be regarded as non-recoverable. The use of generative AI as an information and research tool therefore harbors a substantial and lasting risk potential – for competence development in higher education as well as for our knowledge-based society as a whole. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

At an anniversary symposium celebrating the 20th anniversary of the open-access publication portal "German Medical Science," the future of scientific writing with artificial intelligence (AI) and ChatGPT was discussed. There are concerns regarding the increase in fake news and open questions regarding copyright. It was emphasized that AI can support selected scientific processes but also brings challenges. The article discusses the use of AI tools in scientific writing and highlights legal and ethical aspects. The DFG has already published guidelines for the use of AI, emphasizing transparency and traceability in the research process. The European Commission is planning a legislative framework to regulate AI. Publishers and publication platforms have different guidelines for the use of AI in scientific writing. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of Nachrichten aus der Chemie is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The collective review "ChatGPT" by Stephen Wolfram provides a technical introduction to the functionality of the Chatbot ChatGPT. The book explains the basics of artificial intelligence and neural networks in a clear and entertaining manner. It shows how probability calculations can be applied to larger units to generate meaningful texts. The Large Language Model (LLM) of ChatGPT estimates probabilities in large ranges, which can lead to misinformation. The book is well-prepared didactically and conveys complex content in an understandable way. It also emphasizes that the training process of AI is a mysterious matter and cannot be fully understood. The text consists of two parts. The first part reports on the book "ChatGPT: Language Models and the Future of Knowledge" by Stephen Wolfram. The author explains that neural networks can handle complex problems better than simple ones, as a variety of variables opens up fewer dead ends. The text praises Wolfram's precise use of language but criticizes his claim that the laws of language and thinking could be discovered in the near future. The second part discusses the book "Cheating with ChatGPT" by Christian Rieck. The author criticizes Rieck's careless attitude towards the use of AI systems in writing and emphasizes the importance of ethical aspects and evaluating the output of such systems. It is also pointed out that many students have difficulties recognizing and questioning the quality of AI-generated texts. This is considered a societal problem that the author of the book does not recognize. The article criticizes the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in education. The author points out the Eliza effect, in which people attribute personality to a machine, and criticizes that the author of the book "Writing with AI" reinforces this effect by personifying the chatbot as "co-author KIara". The author argues that AI does not have its own thoughts and only reacts based on statistical data. Despite some useful tips for using generative AI, the article criticizes the populist and undidactic approach of the author and warns of the negative impact on the learners' competence development. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of Medizinische Klinik: Intensivmedizin & Notfallmedizin is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of HMD: Praxis der Wirtschaftsinformatik is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of HMD: Praxis der Wirtschaftsinformatik is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of HMD: Praxis der Wirtschaftsinformatik is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of HMD: Praxis der Wirtschaftsinformatik is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Das kostenfreie digitale Buch https://buch.informatik.cc/ki/ bietet eine umfangreiche Grundlage, um Maschinelles Lernen als Teil der künstlichen Intelligenz im Unterricht zu behandeln. Die Themenbereiche überwachtes, unüberwachtes, bestärkendes und selbstüberwachtes Lernen sind mit vielen Aufgaben und Beispielen beschrieben, sodass darauf aufbauend ein eigener Unterricht entwickelt werden kann. Da sich der theoretische Teil in dem verlinkten digitalen Buch nachlesen lässt, stelle ich hier die didaktischen Überlegungen und Ausgestaltungen vor.

Should ChatGPT be viewed merely as a supportive tool for writers, or does it qualify as a co-author? As ChatGPT and similar language models are likely to become more prevalent in assisting with academic writing and research, it seems that we will face with two possibilities: an increase in ghostwriting that could finally undermine the integrity of the knowledge system, or the need to theoretical preparation to recognize the role of non-human contributors. Drawing on Actor-Network Theory, this article examines the question of whether this Chatbot meets, in principle, the requirements for co-authorship. Answering this question in affirmative, it delves into philosophical discussions concerning the agency, moral agency, and moral accountability of such technological entities.

The article by Sylvia Wenmackers deals with the challenges and concerns related to generative artificial intelligence (AI). The author argues that writing is an integral part of the thinking process and should not be outsourced. She emphasizes that academic work requires dialogue with ideas and that students need to learn how to adequately present their own thoughts. The article also mentions the philosopher Leibniz, who dreamed of an automatic machine capable of settling disputes. The author notes that today's text generators are much more advanced than Leibniz could have imagined, but points out issues such as uncertainty about the sources of generated texts and the potential violation of copyrights. It also highlights the use of AI models that can contain racist, sexist, and violent texts. OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, has employed cheap labor from Kenya to review the model's output. It is noted that the use of AI assistants can lead to adjusting expectations regarding creative process control. The article also discusses how generative AI influences communication and the meaning of language. It points out that there are alternatives to big companies like OpenAI that develop models that can be installed locally and do not use entered information to improve the model. Finally, the question is raised about how young people can use this technology and what questions they should ask. [Extracted from the article]

Brz razvoj umjetne inteligencije (UI) koja je ušla u gotovo sve sfere ljudskog života – od kulture i umjetnosti do obrazovanja, zdravstva, socijalnih pitanja, ekonomije, politike i svakodnevnog života – stvara nove izazove i prilike, no također nosi sa sobom značajne rizike koji mogu imati dalekosežne posljedice. Osim što UI može olakšati i ubrzati mnoge svakodnevne aktivnosti i podići kvalitetu života na višu razinu, postoji i rizik od prijetnji privatnosti, lošeg utjecaja na psihičko zdravlje i obiteljske odnose, povećanja društvenih i ekonomskih nejednakosti, kao i potencijalne zloporabe u nadzoru i vojnim primjenama, što bi moglo dovesti do tragičnih posljedica kako za planet Zemlju tako i za čovječanstvo u cjelini. Crkva, kao Majka i Učiteljica ne može ostati po strani tamo gdje se »stvara« nova slika čovjeka te »kroji« budućnost Zemlje i čovječanstva. Zato, prepoznajući svoju ulogu u brzo mijenjajućem svijetu tehnologija i umjetne inteligencije, Crkva naglašava odgovorno korištenje tehnologije u skladu s Božjom voljom i na dobrobit cijelog čovječanstva i svakog čovjeka, a posebice onih najpotrebnijih i najsiromašnijih. U ovom radu pokazujemo neke od scenarija razvoja umjetne inteligencije i važnost etičkih smjernica za sve sudionike tog procesa te kako crkveno učiteljstvo – od sv. Ivana Pavla II., pape Benedikta XVI., pa sve do pape Franje, kao i različitih vatikanskih institucija – odgovara danas na sve nove etičke izazove koje pred čovječanstvo stavlja umjetna inteligencija.

Copyright of Zeitschrift für Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie is the property of Vittorio Klostermann and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Organisationsberatung, Supervision, Coaching is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of E-Beratungsjournal is the property of E-beratungsjournal.net and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of E-Beratungsjournal is the property of E-beratungsjournal.net and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The use of AI-supported tools in (higher) education is currently characterized by many controversies in the public discourse. The current article presents a possible perspective on how to proceed with and about AI-supported tools, in particular ChatGPT, in (higher) education. Referring to the Frankfurt Dreieck, a holistic view on large language models is taken and the areas influenced by the AI tool are presented in more detail. Overall, the article concludes with a plea for the purposed, critical and self-determined use of these tools in (higher) education and presents possible ways of its implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dans le domaine éducatif, les plates-formes et applications d'IA ne se limitent pas à la simple interaction ou à la réponse à nos interrogations. Cette étude se focalise sur l'examen de ChatGPT, qui depuis sa sortie, a captivé l'attention et suscité l'admiration des utilisateurs en raison de ses performances exceptionnelles. En offrant une multitude de possibilités, il soulève des questions sur son rôle : est-il une source de préoccupation ou un outil bénéfique ? Quelles sont ses répercussions sur l'éducation contemporaine ? En considération des analyses effectuées sur nos corpus, il est permis d'affirmer que cette évolution appelle les enseignants à adopter de nouvelles pratiques pédagogiques, notamment en garantissant la fiabilité des prompts, en vérifiant les sources et en maintenant la stabilité des résultats. De plus, ils doivent réexaminer les méthodes d'évaluation telles que l'évaluation orale, l'évaluation écrite et la réflexion personnelle. Abstract In the educational field, AI platforms and applications are not limited to simple interaction or answering our questions. This study focuses on the review of ChatGPT, which since its release, has captivated the attention and admiration of users due to its exceptional performance. By offering a multitude of possibilities, it raises questions about its role: is it a source of concern or a beneficial tool? What are its repercussions on contemporary education? Taking into account the analyzes carried out on our corpora, it can be affirmed that this development calls on teachers to adopt new pedagogical practices, in particular by guaranteeing the reliability of prompts, verifying sources and maintaining the stability of results. Additionally, they should re-examine assessment methods such as oral assessment, written assessment and personal reflection.

Der Beitrag greift einen im öffentlichen Diskurs wenig thematisierten Aspekt hinsichtlich der Durchdringung des Schulalltags durch Künstliche Intelligenz und dabei besonders KI-basierte Sprachmodelle auf: Die Verwendung durch Schülerinnen und Schüler zur Erstellung von Hausaufgaben. Grundsätzlich sollte die Nutzung pädagogisch begleitet und nicht mit Verboten belegt werden. Fraglos sind die erforderlichen grundlegenden Neukonzeptionen von Hausaufgaben – für manche Fächer stärker, für andere weniger – herausfordernd.

Künstliche Intelligenz dringt zunehmend in künstlerisch-kreative Handlungsfelder vor, die bislang als genuin menschliche Tätigkeiten angesehen wurden. Damit rücken auch Facetten der digitalen Rezeption und Produktion literarischer Gegenstände in den Blick, die bisher im literaturdidaktischen Diskurs kaum eine Rolle gespielt haben: Mit nichtmenschlichen Akteuren zu literarischen Texten interagieren oder literarisch mit Hilfe einer Maschine schreiben, verändert die Erfordernisse und Bedingungen literarischer Texterschließung und Kommunikation außerhalb und innerhalb von schulischen Kontexten. Da es im Umgang mit Literatur jedoch seit jeher nicht nur auf das „Verstehen“ eines Ausgangstextes, sondern ebenso auf seine emotionale, körperliche und somit individuelle bzw. erfahrungsbezogene Aneignung ankommt, wirft der Einbezug von KI-Tools in den Literaturunterricht weitreichende Fragen auf. Der Beitrag fragt daher explorativ, wie sich die Anschlusskommunikation zu literarischen Texten mit Unterstützung von sprachbasierten KI- Tools hier einordnen lässt und welche Transformationen bisheriger schreib- und literaturdidaktischer Normen und Praktiken damit ggf. einhergehen werden. Abstract (english): How to unterstand & write literature with AI? Potentials and risks of KI tools for literary reading and creative writing Artificial intelligence is increasingly making inroads into artistic and creative fields of action that were previously regarded as a genuinely human purview. As a result, facets of the digital reception and production of literary objects that have hardly played a role in didactic discourse to date are now coming into focus: Interactions with non-human actors when discussing literary texts, or even writing literary texts with the help of a machine that can imitate virtually all voices and patterns prevalent in world literature changes the requirements of literary text development and communication outside and within school contexts. However, since dealing with literature has always depended not only on the „understanding“ of a source text, but also on its emotional, physical and thus individual or experiential acquisition, the inclusion of AI tools in literature lessons raises far-reaching questions, not only from a media education and media ethics perspective. Hence, the article explores how follow-up communications to literary texts with the support of language-based AI tools can be categorised and which transformations of norms and practices of writing and literary didactics may be associated with this development.

As medical educators grapple with the consistent demand for high-quality assessments, the integration of artificial intelligence presents a novel solution. This how-to article delves into the mechanics of employing ChatGPT for generating Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) within the medical curriculum. Focusing on the intricacies of prompt engineering, we elucidate the steps and considerations imperative for achieving targeted, high-fidelity results. The article presents varying outcomes based on different prompt structures, highlighting the AI's adaptability in producing questions of distinct complexities. While emphasizing the transformative potential of ChatGPT, we also spotlight challenges, including the AI’s occasional “hallucination”, underscoring the importance of rigorous review. This guide aims to furnish educators with the know-how to integrate AI into their assessment creation process, heralding a new era in medical education tools.

This article presents a comprehensive interview conducted with ChatGPT and Google Bard, investigating the role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the domain of Foreign Language Teaching. The primary objective of this interview, supported by subsequent analysis, is to provide valuable insights into the use, significance, and functions of AI in the context of foreign language teaching. Conducting this interview was motivated by the belief that discussing AI without seeking the opinions and estimations of prominent chatbots would be a notable gap in existing modern research. Both ChatGPT and Bard were posed the same ten questions. These questions explored various aspects, including AI as a paradigm shift in teaching methodology, the most affected areas by AI, the changing roles of teachers and students in the wake of AI, the future importance of language education, the assistance of AI in lesson preparation, the role of AI as a direct learning partner for students, the impact of AI on student assessment, and the future development of foreign language methodology. The responses obtained were, at times, predictable, while in other instances, they proved remarkable and insightful. It is crucial to emphasise that these AI systems should not be solely relied upon as references. It is highly recommended to compare their assessments with those of human experts and other publications to attain a more comprehensive understanding. From the perspective of these two AI systems, this interview represents the current state of the art.

Sohbet yazılımları, personel ve işletme maliyetlerinin azaltılmasını mümkün kıldığından sağlıktan e-ticarete kadar pek çok farklı sektörde aktif olarak kullanılmaya başlanmıştır. Kullanıcı ve sohbet yazılımından oluşan taraflar arasında kurulduğu düşünülen sözleşmenin geçerliliği ise bu tartışmanın temelini oluşturmaktadır. Kullanıcının sohbet yazılımını kullanmaya başlamadan kendisine sunulan şartları ve sözleşmeyi kabul etmeden önce muhatap olduğu karşı tarafın gerçek kişi mi yoksa sanal kişi mi olduğunu bilmemesinden kaynaklı olarak kabul edeceği veya reddeceği sözleşme şartları da değişkenlik gösterecektir. Sohbet yazılımını temsilen kullanıcıyla iletişime geçenin bilinebilir olmaması ve sohbet yazılımının kullanıcının kişisel verilerine göre düzenlenmiş ileti oluşturması durumları, sözleşme özerkliği ve irade özgürlüğü bakımından yapılan sözleşmenin geçerliliğini doğrudan etkilemektedir. Bununla birlikte, sohbet yazılımlarının verdikleri cevapların kaynağını oluşturan ve 5846 sayılı Fikir ve Sanat Eserleri Kanunu kapsamında hak sahipliği tartışmalı olan büyük veri yığınları kullanıcıların kişisel verilerini de içermektedir. Her kişisel veri işleme faaliyetinin temelini oluşturan aydınlatma yükümlülüğünün yerine getirilmesi bakımından çeşitli problemler içeren ChatGPT gibi sohbet yazılımlarınca yapılan işleme faaliyetinin hukuka uygun olmadığı da bir başka sorun olarak göze çarpmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, sohbet yazılımlarının kullanımıyla birlikte ortaya çıkan hukuki uyuşmazlıkların var olan mevzuat ile karşılanamadığı, bu konuya ilişkin özel düzenlemelerin yapılması gerekliliği ve halihazırdaki mevzuatın sohbet yazılımları için nasıl yorumlanabileceğine yer verilmiştir.

The article "General Educational Science and the Problematisation of Pedagogical Knowledge - in the Age of AI" discusses the debate about the use of ChatGPT in higher education and emphasizes the relevance of General Educational Science. It is shown how this is realized as a "problem" in current forms of educational research. The article examines the impact of ChatGPT on university teaching and examination and discusses the opportunities, risks, and limitations of using AI models at universities. It emphasizes that the use of AI in higher education influences pedagogical processes of self-reflection and changes the shaping of pedagogy. The functions of General Educational Science and its relevance for problematizing pedagogy are examined, and the effects of algorithmic rationality on higher education are discussed. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of HMD: Praxis der Wirtschaftsinformatik is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Innere Medizin (2731-7080) is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Der Beitrag erörtert Spannungsfelder, die sich aus der fortwährenden digitalen Transformation der Gesellschaft und dem „ChatGPT-Schock" derzeit neu formieren. Anhand des Beispiels der Erschließung handschriftlicher Dokumente werden diese Felder analysiert und es wird versucht, die verschiedenen sich ändernden Rollen und Verständnisse auszuloten. Dies umfasst die Anteilseigner aus Bibliothek als traditionellem Informationsdienstleister, Plattformbetreiber als Mediatoren, Wissenschaft wie auch Gesellschaft, wobei sich die Technik zunehmend vom passiven Werkzeug zum handelnden Akteur wandelt. Aus diesen Überlegungen heraus wird eine Zukunftsperspektive einer prozess-orientierten Wissensschaffung abgeleitet, zu der alle genannten Akteure als „Co-Produzenten" beitragen. The paper discusses fields of tension that are currently reshaping themselves from the ongoing digital transformation of society and the "ChatGPT shock". Using the example of manuscript exploration, these fields are analysed, and an attempt is made to explore the various changing roles and understandings. This includes the stakeholders from library as traditional information service provider, platform operators as mediators, academia as well as society, where technology is increasingly changing from a passive tool to an acting participant. Based on these considerations, a future perspective of process-oriented knowledge creation is derived, to which all the actors contribute as "co-producers". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article "Study Counseling and Artificial Intelligence A Look at Chat-GPT, Google Bard, and Co." discusses the application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in study counseling. It introduces chatbots like ChatGPT and Google Bard, which are based on advanced technologies and language models and can create the impression of interacting with a human. The article describes various areas of application for AI in study counseling, such as workshop design, student marketing, and digital initial contact. It also discusses how the transition from AI interaction to human interaction can be shaped. The article emphasizes the need for study counseling services to engage with AI applications and potentially develop new competencies. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of GWP: Gesellschaft Wirtschaft Politik is the property of Verlag Barbara Budrich GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Algorithms have become an indispensable part of everyday business life. They not only screen markets within a very short time, but also influence the market behavior of companies. In the age of ChatGPT and “deep learning algorithms”, many intriguing questions arise: Can algorithms be “cartel promoters”, “cartel facilitators” or even “cartel initiators”? Is the antitrust concept of “concurrence of wills” still up-to-date? When can the “conduct” of algorithms be attributed to a company? This practice-oriented article is intended to shed light on problematic constellations on the basis of a number of cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Medizinische Klinik: Intensivmedizin & Notfallmedizin is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Zeitschrift für Herz-, Thorax- und Gefaesschirurgie is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)