AI under review: Response from Thompson and colleagues
Dear Editors,
We are writing in response to the letter from John Ludden entitled, AI under review.
AI represents an incredible opportunity and a daunting responsibility for scientists. Decisions made in its infancy could determine how successfully it develops and help mitigate its considerable risks. In this context, public debate is healthy. It helps flush out problems and identify possible solutions, test arguments, and ensure that ethical questions are addressed with an appropriate sense of urgency and momentum.
For that reason, we believe a balanced discussion is essential. Our article aims to form part of that conversation. It sits alongside an article from DDE, GeoGPT: Open Science in practice, which promotes its chatbot GeoGPT and sets out an ambitious vision. GeoGPT has continued to be promoted over past weeks and has been active at events around the world. It is recruiting members and users, collecting user data, building its brand, and, we understand, providing services.
We welcome the review of DDE by the IUGS but we are not participants in that exercise, which remains internal to the Union, and do not feel that its existence implies restrictions on debate among the wider community.
It is essential that contributions to this sensitive topic are made with the utmost transparency by publishing ideas, comments, insights, and suggestions in scientific journals. This engages the scientific community in the important issues shaping the debate on science and technology, fostering broader reflection in a democratic, open, and informed environment.
Geoscientists have raised concerns about GeoGPT and it is natural that views will be aired whilst these concerns remain unresolved. The alternative is an extended period of silence from one side of the conversation, with DDE providing the only voice.
The important review by IUGS is not undermined by our article and we applaud and support it. We aren’t aware of ethical principles that prevent us from responding to developments while the review takes place. We remain committed to constructive and good-natured dialogue to find solutions to this challenge and, just as importantly, help set the scene for the ethical and transparent use of AI in geoscience in the years to come.
Simon Thompson, Chief Executive, the Geological Society of London, UK
Prof Paul H Cleverley FGS, Geologist and Computer Scientist, and Visiting Professor of Information Science & Technology at Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, Scotland
Dr Silvia Peppoloni, President, International Association for Promoting Geoethics; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Rome, Italy
Prof Christopher ‘Chuck’ M. Bailey, Acting President, Geological Society of America; Chair, Department of Geology, William & Mary, Virginia, USA
(Letter received 16/10/2024)
Further reading
- Cleverley, P. (2024) Geoscience AI in crisis? Geoscientist, 34(3), 22-25
- Cleverley, P. et al. (2024b) Advancing transparent and ethical AI. Geoscientist, 34(4), 14-16
- IUGS (2024) IUGS-sponsored meeting on Large Language Models in the Geological Sciences – for attendees. 16 July 2024; iugs.org
- Stephenson, M. et al. (2024a) Geoscience AI: Opportunities and risks. Geoscientist, 34(3), 26-27
- Stephenson, M. et al. (2024b) GeoGPT: Open science in practice. Geoscientist, 34(4), 12-13