One of the oldest and most widely read scientific journals in the world, Naturehas categorically rejected the publication of images, illustrations and videos created in any way using generative artificial intelligence.
In a press release published on June 7, NatureThe editorial board of said it arrived at the decision after months of investigation and claimed that generative AI challenges basic scientific integrity issues, including transparency, verification, and accountability. attribution. He also cited consent, confidentiality and copyright infringement as major factors.
“The publishing process – with respect to both science and art – is underpinned by a shared commitment to integrity,” Nature written in a statement. “As researchers, editors and publishers, we all need to know the sources of data and images, so that these can be verified as accurate and true. Existing generative AI tools do not provide access to their sources for such verification to take place.
From now on, photographers, artists and filmmakers mandated by Nature will need to confirm that their work was not created or enhanced using generative AI The journal will allow such images in articles specifically related to AI
A startling admission is of nature decision to allow authors to include text created using large language models, such as ChatGPT. Any such use should be documented in the methodology or acknowledgment section of an article. Authors should also provide sources for any data generated by AI prompts – not necessarily straightforward given that large language models are known to invent sources. Finally, a large language model will be accepted as an author.
The decision of the 153-year-old publication contrasts somewhat with that taken by thousands of scientific journals in January to prohibit the use of large language models, more explicitly ChatGPT, in published articles. The move was led by journals Science, Springer NatureAnd Elsevier largely on the grounds that major language models are unable to sign the liability form required of authors and that his mistakes would seep into the literature.
The ban, however, echoes the latest call for publishers to restrict their use of AI-generated images. In May, thousands of journalists and artists signed an open letterlaunched by artist and activist Molly Crabapple and the Center for Artistic Inquiry and Reporting, demanding that newsrooms choose human illustrators over “vampiric” AI image generators and stay true to the founding principles of journalism.
Nature referred to this sense of change in his statement, acknowledging that while the technology holds great promise, it is upsetting long-established conventions in science, art and publishing. “These conventions have, in some cases, taken centuries to develop,” Naturewrote the editors. “If we are not careful in our management of AI, all of these gains are in danger of collapsing.”
More trending stories:
Is time travel real? Here are 6 tantalizing proofs of art history
Follow Artnet News on Facebook:
Want to stay one step ahead of the art world? Subscribe to our newsletter to receive breaking news, revealing interviews and incisive reviews that move the conversation forward.
