Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

On the Ethical Considerations of Generative Agents

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that generative agents, beyond their benefits, carry two overlooked ethical dangers: they can mislead researchers who anthropomorphise their simulation outputs, and their hardware supply chains can involve exploitation…

desk verdict A clear, honest AI-ethics position paper whose two claimed novelties rest on an undocumented literature search, but the core argument holds and the added concerns are worth taking seriously. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19211 v1 pith:IOOIZG3W submitted 2024-11-28 cs.CY cs.AIcs.ETcs.MA

N'yoma Diamond , Soumya Banerjee This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CYcs.AIcs.ETcs.MA
keywords generativeagentsethicsofAIanthropomorphisationmodernslaverysupplychainmisinformationparasocialrelationshipssafety
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This position paper argues that generative agents, which are AI systems that use memory, reflection, planning, and reaction to simulate human behavior, raise ethical problems from all sides of use, including developers, malicious actors, and ordinary users. The authors survey existing ethical discussions and claim that two important concerns have been overlooked: excessive anthropomorphisation can lead researchers to misinterpret simulation results as evidence about real human behavior, and the hardware supply chain behind generative AI can involve exploitation and modern slavery. The paper recommends mitigations such as critically assessing whether to deploy an agent at all, sandboxing, human authentication for sensitive actions, supply-chain audits, and minimizing usage. If the claims are right, ethical evaluation of generative agents needs to broaden beyond chatbots and user trust to include research methodology and global supply chains.

What carries the argument

The central object is the 'generative agent' architecture that combines a dedicated memory module, a reflection process, a planning component, and a reaction mechanism, all driven by a generative language model. This architecture is what makes agents more human-like and more capable than ordinary chatbots, and the paper argues it is also what amplifies the two underappreciated risks. The memory and reflection modules make agents' outputs more persuasive and lifelike, increasing the danger that simulation results will be mistaken for human data and that users will trust or bond with agents excessively. The same demand for capable agents drives demand for the hardware whose supply chain carries exploitation risks. The paper's implied mechanism is thus a chain: the specific design of generative agents increases both their perceived humanness and their resource footprint, creating novel ethical vulnerabilities.

What would settle it

A systematic review with a disclosed search strategy that identifies even one peer-reviewed study directly analysing how anthropomorphising generative agents distorts interpretation of their simulation results, or one study addressing modern slavery in the GAI hardware supply chain, would falsify the paper's central claim that these concerns are understudied.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that generative agents are not just another chatbot technology but introduce ethical challenges that cut across developers, malicious actors, and normal users. Two of these challenges are, in the authors' view, underappreciated. First, because generative agents can behave in human-like ways, researchers and users may anthropomorphise them to the point of treating simulation outputs as direct evidence about human psychology or social behavior, even though those outputs are only descriptive of the underlying language model and not causally linked to human behavior. Second, the physical infrastructure required to run generative agents, including GPUs, smartphones, and batteries, ties their proliferation to mineral extraction and manufacturing in developing nations, with documented risks of exploitation and modern slavery. The paper argues that these concerns merit research attention and that existing mitigations, such as telling users the agent is an AI, are insufficient because they rely on users' compliance and on models' ability to detect harmful anthropomorphism.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's two novel claims rest on the assumption that a genuine literature gap exists: the authors state they could not find any direct analysis of anthropomorphisation-driven misinterpretation of generative-agent results, nor any meaningful discussion of GAI hardware supply-chain exploitation, but they do not document the search process; if a systematic review turned up existing work on either topic, the paper's added value would shrink to a synthesis of already-known concerns.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the paper is correct, researchers using generative agents must treat outputs as descriptions of the model, not as evidence about human behavior, and should report results without anthropomorphic framing.
  • Developers should implement technical safeguards beyond user warnings, such as sandboxing and human authentication, to limit damage from hijacked or jailbroken agents.
  • Organisations should audit their hardware supply chains for exploitation and modern slavery, and minimise or avoid deploying generative agents where simpler or more sustainable technologies suffice.
  • Policymakers and developers should weigh the environmental and labour costs of generative agents before deployment, not after.
  • Future research should develop methods to verify whether anthropomorphic language in agent outputs actually changes how results are interpreted, filling the gap the paper identifies.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A concrete test of the anthropomorphisation claim would be a corpus study of published papers using generative agents, counting how often results are couched in anthropomorphic language and whether that correlates with stronger claims about human behavior.
  • The supply-chain concern suggests a research programme linking the carbon-footprint accounting of AI, which is already studied, with human-rights and labour accounting, so that lifecycle assessments of an AI system include its sociological footprint, not just its emissions.
  • The paper's recommendation to 'minimise usage' could be operationalised as a deployment decision rule that requires an explicit justification for why a generative agent is necessary over a deterministic or simpler simulation, analogous to critical assessment in clinical trials.
  • If anthropomorphisation-driven misinterpretation is real, it would have consequences for the validation of generative agents as scientific instruments; one could test this by asking two groups of social scientists to interpret the same agent outputs, one group primed with anthropomorphic descriptions and the other with mechanistic descriptions, and measuring differences in their conclusions about
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This position paper discusses ethical concerns raised by generative agents, focusing on Park et al.'s Generative Agents framework. It reviews prior work by Bail, Lazar, Chan et al., Anwar et al., and Gabriel et al., then argues that two concerns are underappreciated: (1) excessive anthropomorphisation can distort interpretation of simulation results, and (2) the hardware supply chain for GAI can contribute to exploitation and modern slavery. The paper also surveys more familiar issues such as parasocial relationships, misplaced trust, malicious use, hijacking, labour displacement, and environmental impact, and proposes mitigation measures including critical deployment assessment, sandboxing, human authentication, supply-chain audits, and minimising usage. The authors explicitly state that the concerns are not exhaustive and largely present the work as a normative synthesis rather than an empirical study.

Significance. If the two claimed gaps are genuine, the paper makes a useful contribution by directing attention to under-studied ethical risks in generative-agent research and deployment. The paper is carefully hedged, clearly structured, and well sourced for the known concerns it synthesises, and it explicitly acknowledges its non-exhaustive scope. The principal weakness is that its distinctive contribution rests on undocumented negative literature claims: the 'no extant research' and 'unable to find any literature' statements are not backed by a search strategy, database list, inclusion criteria, or date range. The underlying concerns are plausible, but the novelty assertion is not yet supported. The proposed mitigations are reasonable starting points, though several are offered without evidence of effectiveness.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, Anthropomorphisation and Misunderstanding of Experimental Results] The paper's first novel concern rests on the claim that 'no extant research has been identified directly analysing' how anthropomorphisation distorts interpretation of generative-agent results. This is a negative existential claim, but no search strategy, databases, keyword set, inclusion criteria, or date range is provided anywhere in the manuscript. Because this gap claim is what distinguishes the paper from the surveys reviewed in §2, it is load-bearing; it should be backed by a documented search (even a non-systematic one) or softened to 'we did not find in our review.' The section would also be strengthened by engaging with the existing literature on validity and interpretation of agent-based simulations, which plausibly already addresses the causal-limits point that results describe the framework rather than human behaviour.
  2. [§3, Exploitation of Developing Nations and Modern Slavery] The second novel concern claims 'we were unable to find any literature providing meaningful discussion of these concerns as they relate to GAI.' This unsupported absence claim is especially fragile because the paper itself cites [44]-[47], which document modern slavery in supply chains, mining impacts, and ecologically unequal exchange; what appears absent is only the explicit link to GAI hardware. The authors should either perform and document a structured search for work connecting AI hardware supply chains to exploitation, or narrow the claim to 'we did not find work that makes this connection for generative agents specifically.' Without this, the paper's added value over general supply-chain ethics literature is not established.
  3. [§3, Excessive Trust and Insufficient Scepticism] The statement that 'we were unable to identify any literature applying these techniques to memory-/reflection-enabled generative agents as proposed by Park et al.' is another undocumented negative claim. It is less central than the two above, but it should be handled consistently: either provide the basis for the claim or phrase it as a gap observed in an explicitly non-exhaustive review. The current wording invites a reader to take an absence as established when the search process is invisible.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2] In 'the extant literature that evaluate the ethical considerations,' the verb should agree with the singular noun 'literature'; it should read 'that evaluates.'
  2. [§3, Exploitation of Developing Nations and Modern Slavery] The phrase 'through the using simpler and more sustainable techniques' should read 'through using simpler and more sustainable techniques.'
  3. [Abstract] The abstract identifies 'additional concerns of significant importance' without naming them; naming the two novel concerns would help readers appreciate the contribution at a glance.
  4. [§1] A short sentence stating that the literature review was non-systematic would preempt the main methodological concern about the gap claims; the current caveat about non-exhaustiveness is useful but does not address the evidentiary basis for the absence claims.
  5. [§3, Creation of Parasocial Relationships] The sentence citing Park et al. [1] and Abercrombie et al. [11] for the recommendation to state the nature of generative agents would benefit from specific section or page references, so that readers can verify the proposed design guidance.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper's claims are narrative synthesis and normative proposals, not derived results.

full rationale

This is a position paper surveying existing literature on ethical considerations of generative agents and adding two underappreciated concerns: misinterpretation of simulation results due to anthropomorphisation, and supply-chain exploitation / modern slavery. There is no formal derivation, fitted parameter, or predictive model whose output is forced by its input. The two novelty claims rest on literature-gap assertions ('no extant research has been identified directly analysing' and 'we were unable to find any literature providing meaningful discussion'), but those are empirical claims about the literature, not circular reductions: the paper does not define the gap in terms of its own conclusions, nor does it cite itself as support. The recommendations (critical assessment of deployment, sandboxing, human authentication, supply-chain audits, minimising usage) are normative proposals evaluated against external cited work, not results derived from an assumed conclusion. The only self-referential element is the authors' own belief that a simpler approach should be considered, which is an opinion, not a load-bearing derivation. Any weakness in the literature-gap claims is a question of evidence completeness and correctness risk, not circularity. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters or invented entities. It relies on the effectiveness of generative agents, on the validity of its literature-gap claims, and on the appropriateness of speculating about future applications; these are domain assumptions rather than fitted quantities.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Generative agents are, and will continue to be, capable of realistically emulating human behaviour and decision-making.
    The paper's risk analysis presupposes the effectiveness of the Park et al. framework; invoked in Section 1 and throughout.
  • ad hoc to paper A failure to find literature on a topic is evidence that the topic is under-studied.
    Used in Section 3 to support the two novel concerns; no systematic search protocol is provided.
  • domain assumption Anticipated future applications of generative agents can be ethically assessed before they are built.
    The paper evaluates potential embodied or individualised agents and future harms, as in the parasocial-relationships subsection, rather than only currently deployed systems.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the Ethical Considerations of Generative Agents." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IOOIZG3W

@misc{pith2026241119211,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the Ethical Considerations of Generative Agents},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IOOIZG3W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19211}
}
read the original abstract

The Generative Agents framework recently developed by Park et al. has enabled numerous new technical solutions and problem-solving approaches. Academic and industrial interest in generative agents has been explosive as a result of the effectiveness of generative agents toward emulating human behaviour. However, it is necessary to consider the ethical challenges and concerns posed by this technique and its usage. In this position paper, we discuss the extant literature that evaluate the ethical considerations regarding generative agents and similar generative tools, and identify additional concerns of significant importance. We also suggest guidelines and necessary future research on how to mitigate some of the ethical issues and systemic risks associated with generative agents.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Let's Get You Hired: A Job Seeker's Perspective on Multi-Agent Recruitment Systems for Explaining Hiring Decisions

    cs.CY 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A multi-agent LLM chatbot for job seekers was perceived by 20 interviewed participants as more actionable, trustworthy, and fair than their recalled experiences with traditional hiring methods.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [44]

    Mines: The local wealth and health effects of mineral mining in developing countries,

    J. von der Goltz and P . Barnwal, “Mines: The local wealth and health effects of mineral mining in developing countries,” Journal of Development Economics, vol. 139, pp. 1–16, Jun. 2019, ISSN : 0304-3878. DOI : 10 . 1016 / j . jdeveco.2018 .05. 005. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304387818304875

    work page 2019

  2. [47]

    Modern slavery in s upply chains: A systematic lit- erature review,

    C. Han, F. Jia, M. Jiang, and L. Chen, “Modern slavery in s upply chains: A systematic lit- erature review,” International Journal of Logistics Research and Applicati ons, vol. 0, no. 0, pp. 1–22, 2022, ISSN : 1367-5567. DOI : 10 . 1080 / 13675567 . 2022 . 2118696. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2022.2118696

    work page arXiv 2022

  3. [1]

    Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior,

    J. S. Park, J. O’Brien, C. J. Cai, M. R. Morris, P . Liang, an d M. S. Bernstein, “Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior,” in Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and T echnology, ser. UIST ’23, New Y ork, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Oct. 2023, pp. 1–22, ISBN : 9798400701320. DOI :...

    arXiv 2023

  4. [2]

    Can Generative AI improve social science?

    C. A. Bail, “Can Generative AI improve social science?” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , vol. 121, no. 21, e2314021121, May 2024. DOI : 10 . 1073 / pnas . 2 314021121. [Online]. Available: https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.231 4021121

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.231 2024

  5. [3]

    Why Most Published Research Finding s Are False,

    J. P . A. Ioannidis, “Why Most Published Research Finding s Are False,” en, PLOS Medicine, vol. 2, no. 8, e124, Aug. 2005, ISSN : 1549-1676. DOI : 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 . [Online]. Available: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.13 71/journal.pmed.0020124

    doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 2005

  6. [4]

    Psychology, Science, and Knowledge Construction: Broad- ening Perspectives from the Replication Crisis,

    P . E. Shrout and J. L. Rodgers, “Psychology, Science, and Knowledge Construction: Broad- ening Perspectives from the Replication Crisis,” en, Annual Review of Psychology , vol. 69, no. V olume 69, 2018, pp. 487–510, Jan. 2018, ISSN : 0066-4308, 1545-2085. DOI : 10.1146 /annurev-psych-122216-011845 . [Online]. Available: https://www.annualreviews .org/con...

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-122216- 2018

  7. [5]

    The replication crisis in psychology: An overview for theoretical and philosophical psychology,

    B. J. Wiggins and C. D. Christopherson, “The replication crisis in psychology: An overview for theoretical and philosophical psychology,” Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psy- chology, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 202–217, 2019, ISSN : 2151-3341. DOI : 10.1037/teo0000137

    work page doi:10.1037/teo0000137 2019

  8. [6]

    Psychology’s Replication Crisis and Clinical Psychological Science,

    J. L. Tackett, C. M. Brandes, K. M. King, and K. E. Markon, “ Psychology’s Replication Crisis and Clinical Psychological Science,” en, Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, vol. 15, no. V olume 15, 2019, pp. 579–604, May 2019, ISSN : 1548-5943, 1548-5951. DOI : 10.1146 /annurev-clinpsy-050718-095710 . [Online]. Available: https://www.annualrevie ws.org/co...

    doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050 2019

Show all 62 references
  1. [7]

    Lazar, Frontier AI Ethics: Anticipating and Evaluating the Societ al Impacts of Generative Agents, en, Apr

    S. Lazar, Frontier AI Ethics: Anticipating and Evaluating the Societ al Impacts of Generative Agents, en, Apr. 2024. DOI : 10 . 48550 / arXiv. 2404 .06750. [Online]. Available: https ://arxiv.org/abs/2404.06750

    2024 doi arXiv

  2. [8]

    Harms from increasingly agentic algorit hmic systems,

    A. Chan et al., “Harms from increasingly agentic algorit hmic systems,” in Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, ser. FAccT ’23, Chicago, IL, USA: Association for Computing Machinery , 2023, pp. 651–666, ISBN : 9798400701924. DOI...

    2023

  3. [9]

    Foundational challenges in assuring al ignment and safety of large language models,

    U. Anwar et al., “Foundational challenges in assuring al ignment and safety of large language models,” Transactions on Machine Learning Research , 2024, ISSN : 2835-8856. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=oVTkOs8Pka

    2024

  4. [10]

    Gabriel et al., The ethics of advanced ai assistants , 2024

    I. Gabriel et al., The ethics of advanced ai assistants , 2024. arXiv: 2404.16244 [cs.CY] . [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.16244

    2024 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Mirages. On Anthro- pomorphism in Dialogue Systems,

    G. Abercrombie, A. Cercas Curry, T. Dinkar, V . Rieser, a nd Z. Talat, “Mirages. On Anthro- pomorphism in Dialogue Systems,” in Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, H. Bouamor, J. Pino, and K. Bali, Eds., Singapore: Associatio...

    2023 doi

  6. [12]

    Investigating the Impa ct of User Trust on the Adoption and Use of ChatGPT: Survey Analysis,

    A. Choudhury and H. Shamszare, “Investigating the Impa ct of User Trust on the Adoption and Use of ChatGPT: Survey Analysis,” Journal of Medical Internet Research , vol. 25, no. 1, e47184, Jun. 2023. DOI : 10.2196/47184. [Online]. Available: https://www.jmir.org/2 023/1/e47184

    2023 doi

  7. [13]

    Deceptive AI Ecosystems : The Case of ChatGPT,

    X. Zhan, Y . Xu, and S. Sarkadi, “Deceptive AI Ecosystems : The Case of ChatGPT,” in Pro- ceedings of the 5th International Conference on Conversati onal User Interfaces , ser. CUI ’23, New Y ork, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery , Jul. 2023, pp. 1–6, ISBN : 97984...

    2023

  8. [14]

    On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big?

    E. M. Bender, T. Gebru, A. McMillan-Major, and S. Shmitc hell, “On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big?” In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, ser. FAccT ’21, Virtual Event, Canada: Associa- tion ...

    2021

  9. [15]

    Benchmarking Large L anguage Models in Retrieval- Augmented Generation,

    J. Chen, H. Lin, X. Han, and L. Sun, “Benchmarking Large L anguage Models in Retrieval- Augmented Generation,” Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligen ce, vol. 38, no. 16, pp. 17 754–17 762, Mar. 2024, ISSN : 2374-3468. DOI : 10 . 1609 / aaai . v 38i16.29728...

    2024

  10. [16]

    In-Context Retrieval-Augmented Language Models ,

    O. Ram, Y . Levine, I. Dalmedigos, D. Muhlgay, A. Shashua , K. Leyton-Brown, and Y . Shoham, “In-Context Retrieval-Augmented Language Models ,” Transactions of the Associ- ation for Computational Linguistics , vol. 11, pp. 1316–1331, Nov. 2023, ISSN : 2307-387X. DOI : 10.1162/...

    2023 doi

  11. [17]

    A Survey on RAG Meeting LLMs: Towards Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models,

    W . Fan, Y . Ding, L. Ning, S. Wang, H. Li, D. Yin, T.-S. Chua , and Q. Li, “A Survey on RAG Meeting LLMs: Towards Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models,” in Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Da ta Mining , ser. KDD ’24, New Y ork, NY...

    2024

  12. [18]

    Bots and Misinformation Spread on Social Media: Impli- cations for COVID-19,

    M. Himelein-Wachowiak, S. Giorgi, A. Devoto, M. Rahman , L. Ungar, H. A. Schwartz, D. H. Epstein, L. Leggio, and B. Curtis, “Bots and Misinformation Spread on Social Media: Impli- cations for COVID-19,” EN, Journal of Medical Internet Research , vol. 23, no. 5, e26933, May 202...

    2021 doi

  13. [19]

    Social B ots and the Spread of Disinformation in Social Media: The Challenges of Artificial Intelligence,

    N. Hajli, U. Saeed, M. Tajvidi, and F. Shirazi, “Social B ots and the Spread of Disinformation in Social Media: The Challenges of Artificial Intelligence, ” en, British Journal of Manage- ment, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 1238–1253, 2022, ISSN : 1467-8551. DOI : 10.1111/1467-8551.12

    2022 doi

  14. [20]

    The spread of low-credibility content by social bots,

    C. Shao, G. L. Ciampaglia, O. V arol, K.-C. Y ang, A. Flamm ini, and F. Menczer, “The spread of low-credibility content by social bots,” en, Nature Communications, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 4787, Nov. 2018, ISSN : 2041-1723. DOI : 10.1038/s41467- 018- 06930- 7 . [Online]. Available: h...

    2018 doi

  15. [21]

    The Creation and Detection of Deep fakes: A Survey,

    Y . Mirsky and W . Lee, “The Creation and Detection of Deep fakes: A Survey,” ACM Comput- ing Surveys, vol. 54, no. 1, 7:1–7:41, Jan. 2021, ISSN : 0360-0300. DOI : 10.1145/3425780 . [Online]. Available: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3425780

    2021 doi

  16. [22]

    Fact or fake? The search for truth in an infode mic of disinformation, misinforma- tion, and malinformation with deepfake and fake news,

    W . M. Lim, “Fact or fake? The search for truth in an infode mic of disinformation, misinforma- tion, and malinformation with deepfake and fake news,” EN, Journal of Strategic Marketing , Sep. 2023, ISSN : 0965-254X. [Online]. Available: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi /abs/10...

    2023

  17. [23]

    Evolving Bots: The New Gene ration of Comment Bots and their Underlying Scam Campaigns in Y ouTube,

    S. H. Na, S. Cho, and S. Shin, “Evolving Bots: The New Gene ration of Comment Bots and their Underlying Scam Campaigns in Y ouTube,” in Proceedings of the 2023 ACM on Internet Measurement Conference, ser. IMC ’23, New Y ork, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Oct. ...

    2023

  18. [24]

    Fro m Chatbots to Phishbots?: Phishing Scam Generation in Commercial Large Language Models,

    S. S. Roy, P . Thota, K. V . Naragam, and S. Nilizadeh, “Fro m Chatbots to Phishbots?: Phishing Scam Generation in Commercial Large Language Models,” Engl ish, in 2024 IEEE Sympo- sium on Security and Privacy (SP) , IEEE Computer Society, May 2024, pp. 221–221, ISBN : 97983503...

    2024

  19. [25]

    Cyberattacks U sing ChatGPT: Exploring Mali- cious Content Generation Through Prompt Engineering,

    L. Alotaibi, S. Seher, and N. Mohammad, “Cyberattacks U sing ChatGPT: Exploring Mali- cious Content Generation Through Prompt Engineering,” in 2024 ASU International Con- ference in Emerging T echnologies for Sustainability and In telligent Systems (ICETSIS) , Jan. 2024, pp. 1...

    2024

  20. [26]

    GenAI against humanity: Nefarious applic ations of generative artificial intelli- gence and large language models,

    E. Ferrara, “GenAI against humanity: Nefarious applic ations of generative artificial intelli- gence and large language models,” en, Journal of Computational Social Science , Feb. 2024, ISSN : 2432-2725. DOI : 10.1007/s42001-024-00250-1 . [Online]. Available: https://do i.org/1...

    2024 doi

  21. [27]

    A. G. Chowdhury, M. M. Islam, V . Kumar, F. H. Shezan, V . Ku mar, V . Jain, and A. Chadha, Breaking Down the Defenses: A Comparative Survey of Attacks on Large Language Models , Mar. 2024. DOI : 10 . 48550 / arXiv . 2403 . 04786. arXiv: 2403 . 04786 [cs]. [Online]. Available:...

    2024 doi

  22. [28]

    A Comprehensi ve Study of Jailbreak Attack ver- sus Defense for Large Language Models,

    Z. Xu, Y . Liu, G. Deng, Y . Li, and S. Picek, “A Comprehensi ve Study of Jailbreak Attack ver- sus Defense for Large Language Models,” in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics ACL 2024 , L.-W . Ku, A. Martins, and V . Srikumar, Eds., Bangkok, Thailand and ...

    2024

  23. [29]

    Not What Y ou’ve Signed Up For: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integra ted Applications with Indi- rect Prompt Injection,

    K. Greshake, S. Abdelnabi, S. Mishra, C. Endres, T. Holz , and M. Fritz, “Not What Y ou’ve Signed Up For: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integra ted Applications with Indi- rect Prompt Injection,” in Proceedings of the 16th ACM W orkshop on Artificial Intellige nce and Security , ...

    2023

  24. [30]

    Hacking Generative AI,

    I. Kilovaty, “Hacking Generative AI,” Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review , vol. 58, Mar. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=4788909

    2024

  25. [31]

    V ocabulary Attack to Hijack L arge Language Model Appli- cations,

    P . Levi and C. P . Neumann, “V ocabulary Attack to Hijack L arge Language Model Appli- cations,” in CLOUD COMPUTING 2024, The Fifteenth International Confere nce on Cloud Computing, GRIDs, and Virtualization, Apr. 2024, pp. 19–24, ISBN : 978-1-68558-156-5. [On- line]. Availab...

    2024

  26. [32]

    A car dealership added an AI chatbot to i ts site. Then all hell broke loose.,

    K. Notopoulos, “A car dealership added an AI chatbot to i ts site. Then all hell broke loose.,” Business Insider, Dec. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.businessinsider.com/c ar-dealership-chevrolet-chatbot-chatgpt-pranks-chev y-2023-12

    2023

  27. [33]

    Retailers Are Testing An AI Bot That Haggles With Customers Over Price,

    L. Debter, “Retailers Are Testing An AI Bot That Haggles With Customers Over Price,” F orbes, Sep. 2023. [Online]. Available: https : / / www . forbes . com / sites / laurende bter/2023/09/28/retailers-are-testing-an-ai-bot-tha t-haggles-with-cus tomers-over-price/

    2023

  28. [34]

    The Future Of Haggling: Bargain Hunters Negotiate Deals With AI Bot,

    M. Faithfull, “The Future Of Haggling: Bargain Hunters Negotiate Deals With AI Bot,” F orbes, Aug. 2024. [Online]. Available: https : / / www . forbes .com /sites /markfait hfull/2024/08/19/the-future-of-haggling-bargain-hun ters-negotiate-dea ls-with-ai-bot/

    2024

  29. [35]

    ChatGPT provided better customer service th an his staff. He fired them.,

    P . V erma, “ChatGPT provided better customer service th an his staff. He fired them.,” en-US, W ashington Post, Oct. 2023, ISSN : 0190-8286. [Online]. Available: https://www.washing tonpost.com/technology/2023/10/03/ai-customer-servi ce-jobs/

    2023

  30. [36]

    E. D. Yilmaz, I. Naumovska, and V . A. Aggarwal, AI-Driven Labor Substitution: Evidence from Google Translate and ChatGPT , en, SSRN Scholarly Paper, Rochester, NY, Mar. 2023. DOI : 10.2139/ssrn.4400516. [Online]. Available: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstra ct=4400516

    2023 doi

  31. [37]

    Study and A nalysis of Chat GPT and its Impact on Different Fields of Study,

    D. Kalla, N. Smith, F. Samaah, and S. Kuraku, “Study and A nalysis of Chat GPT and its Impact on Different Fields of Study,” en, International Journal of Innovative Science and Re- search T echnology, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 827–833, Mar. 2023, ISSN : 2456-2165. [Online]. Avail- ab...

    2023

  32. [38]

    A news site used AI to write articles. It was a j ournalistic disaster.,

    P . Farhi, “A news site used AI to write articles. It was a j ournalistic disaster.,” en-US, W ash- ington Post, Jan. 2023, ISSN : 0190-8286. [Online]. Available: https://www.washingtonp ost.com/media/2023/01/17/cnet-ai-articles-journalis m-corrections/

    2023

  33. [39]

    Brynjolfsson, D

    E. Brynjolfsson, D. Li, and L. R. Raymond, Generative AI at W ork, Working Paper, Apr. 2023. DOI : 10.3386/w31161. [Online]. Available: https://www.nber.org/papers/w31161

    2023 doi

  34. [40]

    Dellermann, A

    D. Dellermann, A. Calma, N. Lipusch, T. Weber, S. Weigel , and P . Ebel,The future of human- AI collaboration: A taxonomy of design knowledge for hybrid intelligence systems, en, May

  35. [41]

    G enerative AI and ChatGPT: Applications, challenges, and AI-human collaboration,

    F. Fui-Hoon Nah, R. Zheng, J. Cai, K. Siau, and L. Chen, “G enerative AI and ChatGPT: Applications, challenges, and AI-human collaboration,” Journal of Information T echnology Case and Application Research, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 277–304, Jul. 2023, ISSN : 1522-8053. DOI : 10.108...

    2023

  36. [42]

    Human-AI Collabora tion in Healthcare: A Review and Research Agenda,

    Y . Lai, A. Kankanhalli, and D. Ong, “Human-AI Collabora tion in Healthcare: A Review and Research Agenda,” Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 2021 (H ICSS-54), Jan. 2021. [Online]. Available: https://aisel.aisnet.org/hicss- 54/cl/machines _as_teammates/5

    2021

  37. [43]

    Cobots in knowledge work: Human – AI collaboration in managerial professions,

    K. Sowa, A. Przegalinska, and L. Ciechanowski, “Cobots in knowledge work: Human – AI collaboration in managerial professions,” Journal of Business Research , vol. 125, pp. 135– 142, Mar. 2021, ISSN : 0148-2963. DOI : 10 . 1016 / j . jbusres . 2020 . 11 . 038. [Online]. Availab...

    2021

  38. [45]

    Socially Responsible Mining: The Relationship between Mining and Po verty, Human Health and the Environment,

    R. M. Maier, F. Díaz-Barriga, J. A. Field, J. Hopkins, B. Klein, and M. M. Poulton, “Socially Responsible Mining: The Relationship between Mining and Po verty, Human Health and the Environment,” Reviews on environmental health, vol. 29, no. 0, pp. 83–89, 2014, ISSN : 0048-

    2014

  39. [46]

    Global pat terns of ecologically unequal exchange: Implications for sustainability in the 21st century,

    C. Dorninger, A. Hornborg, D. J. Abson, H. von Wehrden, A . Schaffartzik, S. Giljum, J.-O. Engler, R. L. Feller, K. Hubacek, and H. Wieland, “Global pat terns of ecologically unequal exchange: Implications for sustainability in the 21st century,” Ecological Economics, vol. 179...

    2021

  40. [48]

    Impact of silica mining on environment,

    A. Mishra, “Impact of silica mining on environment,” Journal of Geography and Regional Planning, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 150–156, Jun. 2015, ISSN : 2070-1845. DOI : 10.5897/JGRP2015 .0495. [Online]. Available: https://academicjournals.org/journal/JGRP/article -abstract/915EC0C53587

    2015 doi

  41. [49]

    The need for tr ansparent communication in mining: A case study in lithium exploitation,

    T. Ribeiro, A. Lima, and C. V asconcelos, “The need for tr ansparent communication in mining: A case study in lithium exploitation,” International Journal of Science Education, Part B , vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 324–343, Oct. 2021, ISSN : 2154-8455. DOI : 10.1080/21548455.2021.1 999...

    2021

  42. [50]

    How developing co untries are paying a high price for the global mineral boom,

    J. Vidal, P . Guest, and g. b. P . Guest, “How developing co untries are paying a high price for the global mineral boom,” en-GB, The Observer, Aug. 2015, ISSN : 0029-7712. [Online]. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015 /aug/15/dev eloping-countries-h...

    2015

  43. [51]

    The carbon impact of artificial intelligence,

    P . Dhar, “The carbon impact of artificial intelligence, ” en, Nature Machine Intelligence, vol. 2, no. 8, pp. 423–425, Aug. 2020, ISSN : 2522-5839. DOI : 10.1038/s42256- 020- 0219- 9 . [Online]. Available: https://www.nature.com/articles/s42256-020-0219-9

    2020 doi

  44. [52]

    Sustainable AI: Environmental Implic ations, Challenges and Opportunities,

    C.-J. Wu et al., “Sustainable AI: Environmental Implic ations, Challenges and Opportunities,” en, Proceedings of Machine Learning and Systems , vol. 4, pp. 795–813, Apr. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://proceedings.mlsys.org/paper_files/paper/202 2/hash/4622 11f67c7d858f6633...

    2022

  45. [53]

    From Words to Watts: Benchmark ing the Energy Costs of Large Language Model Inference,

    S. Samsi, D. Zhao, J. McDonald, B. Li, A. Michaleas, M. Jo nes, W . Bergeron, J. Kepner, D. Tiwari, and V . Gadepally, “From Words to Watts: Benchmark ing the Energy Costs of Large Language Model Inference,” in 2023 IEEE High Performance Extreme Computing Conference (HPEC) , S...

    2023

  46. [54]

    Preventing the Immense Increase in the Life- Cycle Energy and Carbon Footprints of LLM-Powered Intellig ent Chatbots,

    P . Jiang, C. Sonne, W . Li, F. Y ou, and S. Y ou, “Preventing the Immense Increase in the Life- Cycle Energy and Carbon Footprints of LLM-Powered Intellig ent Chatbots,” Engineering, Apr. 2024, ISSN : 2095-8099. DOI : 10 . 1016 / j . eng . 2024. 04. 002. [Online]. Available: ...

    2024

  47. [55]

    LLMCarbon: Modeling the end-to-end carbon footprint of large language models,

    A. Faiz, S. Kaneda, R. Wang, R. C. Osi, P . Sharma, F. Chen, and L. Jiang, “LLMCarbon: Modeling the end-to-end carbon footprint of large language models,” in The Twelfth Interna- tional Conference on Learning Representations , 2024. [Online]. Available: https://openr eview.net...

    2024

  48. [56]

    Ligozat, J

    A.-L. Ligozat, J. Lefevre, A. Bugeau, and J. Combaz, Unraveling the Hidden Environmental Impacts of AI Solutions for Environment Life Cycle Assessme nt of AI Solutions , Jan. 2022. DOI : 10.3390/su14095172. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/1 4/9/5172

    2022 doi

  49. [57]

    AI ethics: A fra mework for measuring embodied carbon in AI systems,

    C. Mulligan and S. Elaluf-Calderwood, “AI ethics: A fra mework for measuring embodied carbon in AI systems,” en, AI and Ethics , vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 363–375, Aug. 2022, ISSN : 2730-

    2022

  50. [554]

    Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/146 7-8551.12554

    [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/146 7-8551.12554

  51. [822]

    Available: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3618257.3624822

    [Online]. Available: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3618257.3624822

  52. [2021]

    [Online]

    DOI : 10.48550/arXiv.2105.03354 . [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/ab s/2105.03354. 9

    doi arXiv

  53. [5961]

    [Online]

    DOI : 10.1007/s43681-021-00071-2 . [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10 .1007/s43681-021-00071-2 . 11

    doi

  54. [7554]

    [Online]

    DOI : 10.1515/reveh-2014-0022 . [Online]. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.n ih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4739650/

    2014 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.