I've been married for nearly 40 years, and for no particular reason, my wife and I have never felt like talking much about our past relationships. I never really had anything in particular to say about it, but then about three years into our marriage, that changed when a young woman I'd dated all summer as a teenager started to make waves in the music industry. — The wave has continued to the point where her music is now instantly recognizable to most people.
I've gotten into the habit of listening to this artist's music because it evokes personal connections and memories. My wife mentioned not long ago that I was a “huge fan.” I laughed, nodded, and changed the subject. I worry that sharing this connection with my wife will prevent me from continuing to enjoy this artist's body of work. It's not jealousy, just mild teasing. Is it ethical negligence? – Anonymous
From an Ethicist:
In all the decades of marriage, you have never mentioned Summer. Readers can name their favorite from the category of famous female pop singers who emerged in the mid-1980s. teeth It's surprising. But the relationship doesn't have any inherent importance that makes it mandatory to reveal it. Every couple forms its own cultural microclimate of expectations, customs, and values. Whether it's ethical to not mention this relationship depends on the norms of your microclimate. Some couples believe in telling each other every detail of your past. You and your wife have settled into different habits. So the question is whether your wife will feel betrayed and hurt by your silence about this summer fling, or whether, as you say, she will simply be amused.
Assuming you're right, you can offer her a deal: explain why you like this music, but only if she promises not to tease you about it. If you don't think that's a good plan, well, don't feel too bad about it, just go ahead and do it. There are plenty of people out there who have enjoyed that kind of connection for ages, and you can admire the fact that you've never wanted to do that.
Readers' reactions
Last week's question came from a reader who is a professor at a small university and recently became chair of the English department. They wrote: “I thought ChatGPT might be useful for papers, proposals, evaluations, etc. that take up valuable time that could be spent on my students and my own research. Would it be okay to draft such documents in ChatGPT, where I make no claims to creative 'genius'?”
The ethicist wrote in his response: “As long as you make the appropriate revisions and are confident that the final document says what you want it to say, I see no reason not to start this way. A large department at a large university may employ six or more full-time administrators. Department administrators may be adept at drafting these kinds of documents for the dean to review and revise. There's nothing wrong with doing the same with ChatGPT, so long as you exercise appropriate vigilance and are accountable for what you submit.” (Read the full question and answer again here.
⬥
It's bliss Access to technology that can ease our daily struggles with any task that doesn’t require human intuition or ingenuity. As humans, what we pride ourselves on is not the fact that we can perform tasks unconsciously, but the fact that we can create something new and unique. — Stefan
⬥
I don't think there is an ethical problem. Regarding using ChatGPT without citing it in your annual report. However, Prof. Appiah's response did not consider the possibility that the letter writer might include confidential information when instructing ChatGPT to provide a draft. That information will be stored indefinitely on ChatGPT servers. No doubt your university has a policy of not sharing confidential information with third parties. Please abide by that policy. — Steven
⬥
Ethicists respond You've missed one very important consideration: data privacy. Do not enter any personally identifiable information into ChatGPT unless you can prove that privacy risks have been completely eliminated. We all have an ethical obligation to ensure that our use of ChatGPT does not put at risk our employers, colleagues, and anyone else under our care, literally or figuratively. — Ann
⬥
I am also the dean We are working on the impact of artificial intelligence on our profession. The language in these reports is not entirely the author's own, and therefore technically it could be considered plagiarism. We would like to caution the authors to think carefully about how such allegations could impact their institutions and their careers. — Brigid
⬥
In my opinion, Professors are misunderstanding their role. An administrator's role is to manage. They can devote time to teaching or research, but an administrator's primary role is to advance the interests of their department. Anything less is unethical. I'm not opposed to using chatbots to generate documentation, but professors have an obligation to carefully review and edit each new iteration. — Donald
