Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37487183›Full record

ArticleThe American journal of bioethics : AJOB2023

AUTOGEN: A Personalized Large Language Model for Academic Enhancement-Ethics and Proof of Principle.

Sebastian Porsdam Mann, Brian D Earp, Nikolaj Møller, Suren Vynn, Julian Savulescu

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The American journal of bioethics : AJOB, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Digital bioethics: exploring an emerging field.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2026
    Article
  2. When to create embryos or organoids for research.Journal of medical ethics · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. IsAI & society · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Digital Doppelgängers and Lifespan Extension: What Matters?The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. The transformative impact of large language models on medical writing and publishing: current applications, challenges and future directions.The Korean journal of physiology & pharmacology : official journal of the Korean Physiological Society and the Korean Society of Pharmacology · 2024
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Ethics of artificial intelligence in medicine.Singapore medical journal · 2024
    Review
  14. AI and the need for justification (to the patient).Ethics and information technology · 2024
    Article
  15. Generative-AI-Generated Challenges for Health Data Research.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Sebastian Porsdam MannUniversity of Oxford.ORCID 0000-0002-1867-2097
Brian D EarpUniversity of Oxford.ORCID 0000-0001-9691-2888
Nikolaj MøllerUniversity of Oxford.
Suren VynnIndependent Researcher.
Julian SavulescuNational University of Singapore.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this article, we explore the potential of enhancing academic prose and idea generation by fine-tuning a large language model (here, GPT-3) on one's own previously published writings: AUTOGEN ("AI Unique Tailored Output GENerator"). We develop, test, and describe three distinct AUTOGEN models trained on the prior scholarly output of three of the current authors (SBM, BDE, JS), with a fourth model trained on the combined works of all three. Our AUTOGEN models demonstrate greater variance in quality than the base GPT-3 model, with many outputs outperforming the base model in format, style, overall quality, and novel idea generation. As proof of principle, we present and discuss examples of AUTOGEN-written sections of existing and hypothetical research papers. We further discuss ethical opportunities, concerns, and open questions associated with personalized academic prose and idea generators. Ethical opportunities for personalized LLMs such as AUTOGEN include increased productivity, preservation of writing styles and cultural traditions, and aiding consensus building. However, ethical concerns arise due to the potential for personalized LLMs to reduce output diversity, violate privacy and intellectual property rights, and facilitate plagiarism or fraud. The use of coauthored or multiple-source trained models further complicates issues surrounding ownership and attribution. Open questions concern a potential credit-blame asymmetry for LLM outputs, the legitimacy of licensing agreements in authorship ascription, and the ethical implications of coauthorship attribution for data contributors. Ensuring the output is sufficiently distinct from the source material is crucial to maintaining ethical standards in academic writing. These opportunities, risks, and open issues highlight the intricate ethical landscape surrounding the use of personalized LLMs in academia. We also discuss open technical questions concerning the integration of AUTOGEN-style personalized LLMs with other LLMs, such as GPT-4, for iterative refinement and improvement of generated text. In conclusion, we argue that AUTOGEN-style personalized LLMs offer significant potential benefits in terms of both prose generation and, to a lesser extent, idea generation. If associated ethical issues are appropriately addressed, AUTOGEN alone or in combination with other LLMs can be seen as a potent form of academic enhancement.

Indexed as

AuthorshipLanguageHumansLicensureMoral ObligationsOrganizationsAUTOGENbioethicsethicsFine-tuninglarge language models (LLM)personalised LLM

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.