Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39959574›Full record

ArticleAI and ethics2025

"ChatGPT says no": agency, trust, and blame in Twitter discourses after the launch of ChatGPT.

Dan Heaton, Elena Nichele, Jeremie Clos, Joel E Fischer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AI and ethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Dan HeatonSchool of Computer Science, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1269-7004
Elena NicheleDepartment of Management, College of Arts Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK.
Jeremie ClosSchool of Computer Science, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire UK.
Joel E FischerSchool of Computer Science, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

ChatGPT, a chatbot using the GPT-n series large language model, has surged in popularity by providing conversation, assistance, and entertainment. This has raised questions about its agency and resulting implications on trust and blame, particularly when concerning its portrayal on social media platforms like Twitter. Understanding trust and blame is crucial for gauging public perception, reliance on, and adoption of AI-driven tools like ChatGPT. To explore ChatGPT's perceived status as an algorithmic social actor and uncover implications for trust and blame through agency and transitivity, we examined 88,058 tweets about ChatGPT, published in a 'hype period' between November 2022 and March 2023, using Corpus Linguistics and Critical Discourse Analysis, underpinned by Social Actor Representation. Notably, ChatGPT was presented in tweets as a social actor on 87% of occasions, using personalisation and agency metaphor to emphasise its role in content creation, information dissemination, and influence. However, a dynamic presentation, oscillating between a creative social actor and an information source, reflected users' uncertainty regarding its capabilities and, thus, blame attribution occurred. On 13% of occasions, ChatGPT was presented passively through backgrounding and exclusion. Here, the emphasis on ChatGPT's role in informing and influencing underscores interactors' reliance on it for information, bearing implications for information dissemination and trust in AI-generated content. Therefore, this study contributes to understanding the perceived social agency of decision-making algorithms and their implications on trust and blame, valuable to AI developers and policymakers and relevant in comprehending and dealing with power dynamics in today's age of AI.

Indexed as

Corpus linguisticsCritical discourse analysisDecision-making algorithmLarge language modelSocial actor representationSocial media

Identifiers

PMID39959574
PMCPMC11828844

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.