Generative artificial intelligence (AI), in particular large language models such as ChatGPT have reached public consciousness with a wide-ranging discussion of their capabilities and suitability for various professions. Following the printing press and internet, generative AI language models are the third transformative technological invention with truly cross-sectoral impact on knowledge transmission. While the printing press allowed for the transmission of knowledge that is independent of the physical presence of the knowledge holder with publishers acting as gatekeepers, the internet added levels of democratization allowing anyone to publish, along with global immediacy. The development of social media resulted in an increased fragmentation and tribalization of on-line communities on their ways of knowing, resulting in alternative truths propagated in echo chambers. It is against this background that generative AI language models have entered public consciousness. Using strategic foresight methodology, this paper will examine the polemic proposition that the age of generative AI will emerge as an age of public ignorance.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI), in particular large language models such as ChatGPT have reached public consciousness with a wide-ranging discussion of their capabilities and suitability for various professions. The extant literature on the ethics of generative AI revolves around its usage and application, rather than the ethical framework of the responses provided. In the education sector, concerns have been raised with regard to the ability of these language models to aid in student assignment writing with the potentially concomitant student misconduct of such work is submitted for assessment. Based on a series of ‘conversations’ with multiple replicates, using a range of discussion prompts, this paper examines the capability of ChatGPT to provide advice on how to cheat in assessments. Since its public release in November 2022, numerous authors have developed ‘jailbreaking’ techniques to trick ChatGPT into answering questions in ways other than the default mode. While the default mode activates a safety awareness mechanism that prevents ChatGPT from providing unethical advice, other modes partially or fully bypass the this mechanism and elicit answers that are outside expected ethical boundaries. ChatGPT provided a wide range of suggestions on how to best cheat in university assignments, with some solutions common to most replicates (‘plausible deniability,’ language adjustment of contract written text’). Some of ChatGPT’s solutions to avoid cheating being detected were cunning, if not slightly devious. The implications of these findings are discussed.

The recent public release of the generative AI language model ChatGPT has captured the public imagination and has resulted a rapid uptake and widespread experimentation by the general public and academia alike. The number of academic publications focusing on the capabilities as well as practical and ethical implications of generative AI has been growing exponentially. One of the concerns with this unprecedented growth in scholarship related to generative AI, in particular ChatGPT, is that in most cases the raw data, that is the text of the original ‘conversations,’ have not been made available to the audience of the papers and thus cannot be drawn on to assess the veracity of the arguments made and the conclusions drawn therefrom. This paper provides a protocol for the documentation and archiving of these raw data.

The documentation and management of the cultural heritage of the COVID-19 pandemic as well as the heritage digital age are emerging discourses in cultural heritage management. The enthusiastic uptake of a generative artificial intelligence application (ChatGPT) by the general public and academics alike has provided an opportunity to explore i) whether, and to what extent, generative AI can conceptualize an emergent, not well-described field of cultural heritage (the heritage of COVID-19, ii), whether it can design an exhibition on the topic and iii) whether it can identify sites associated with the pandemic that may be(come) significant heritage. Drawing on an extended ‘conversation’ with ChatGPT, this paper shows that generative AI is capable of not only developing a concept for an exhibition of the heritage of COVID-19 but also that it can provide a defensible array of exhibition topics as well as a relevant selection of exhibition objects. ChatGPT is also capable of making suggestions on the selection of cultural heritage sites associated with the pandemic, but these lack specificity. The discrepancy between ChatGPT’s responses to the exhibition concept and its responses regarding potential heritage sites suggests differential selection and access to data that were used to train the model, with a seemingly heavy reliance on Wikipedia. The ‘conversation’ has shown that ChatGPT can serve as a brainstorming tool, but that a curator’s considered interpretation of the responses is still essential.

The public release of ChatGPT, a generative artificial intelligence language model, caused wide-spread public interest in its abilities but also concern about the implications of the application on academia, depending on whether it was deemed benevolent (e.g., supporting analysis and simplification of tasks) or malevolent (e.g., assignment writing and academic misconduct). While ChatGPT has been shown to provide answers of sufficient quality to pass some university exams, its capacity to write essays that require an exploration of value concepts is unknown. This paper presents the results of a study where ChatGPT 4 (release May 2023) was tasked with writing a 1500-word essay to discuss the nature of values used in the assessment of cultural heritage significance. Based on an analysis of 36 iterations, ChatGPT writes essays of limited length of about 50% of the stipulated word count which are primarily descriptive without any depth or complexity. The concepts, which are often flawed and suffer from inverted logic, are presented in an arbitrary sequence with limited coherence and without any defined line of argument. Given that it is a generative language model, ChatGPT often splits concepts and uses one or more words to develop tangential arguments. While ChatGPT provides references as tasked, many are fictitious, albeit with plausible authors and titles. At present ChatGPT has the ability to critique its own work but seems unable to incorporate that critique in a meaningful way to improve a previous draft. Setting aside conceptual flaws such as inverted logic, several of the essays could possibly pass as a junior school assignment, but fall far short of what would be expected in senior school, let alone at a college and university level.