Vox Populi, Vox ChatGPT: Large Language Models, Education and Democracy

In the era of generative AI and specifically large language models (LLMs), exemplified by ChatGPT, the intersection of artificial intelligence and human reasoning has become a focal point of global attention. Unlike conventional search engines, LLMs go beyond mere information retrieval, entering into the realm of discourse culture. Its outputs mimic well-considered, independent opinions or statements of facts, presenting a pretense of wisdom. This paper explores the potential transformative impact of LLMs on democratic societies. It delves into the concerns regarding the difficulty in distinguishing ChatGPT-generated texts from human output. The discussion emphasizes the essence of authorship, rooted in the unique human capacity for reason - a quality indispensable for democratic discourse and successful collaboration within free societies. Highlighting the potential threats to democracy, this paper presents three arguments: the Substitution argument, the Authenticity argument, and the Facts argument. These arguments highlight the potential risks that are associated with an overreliance on LLMs. The central thesis posits that widespread deployment of LLMs may adversely affect the fabric of a democracy if not comprehended and addressed proactively and properly. In proposing a solution, we advocate for an emphasis on education as a means to mitigate risks. We suggest cultivating thinking skills in children, fostering coherent thought formulation, and distinguishing between machine-generated output and genuine, i.e. human, reasoning. The focus should be on responsible development and usage of LLMs, with the goal of augmenting human capacities in thinking, deliberating and decision-making rather than substituting them

Experimentelle und normative Ethik: Autonomes Fahren

This dissertation provides two published articles that tackle different, yet related, ethical issues associated with the introduction of the self-driving car. First, using the traditional form of normative argument this dissertation discusses the question of who should decide about the "ethics setting" of an autonomous vehicle and if the famous trolley problem is an adequate tool to examine the problem of the "ethics of crashing". The second publication tries to shed some light on possible empirical reservations people have towards delegating a moral task to an algorithm.Diese Dissertation besteht aus zwei publizierten Artikeln, die sich mit zwei unterschiedlichen, jedoch verwandten, ethischen Fragestellungen bezüglich der Einführung autonomer Fahrzeuge beschäftigen. Der erste Artikel befasst sich mit der Frage wer über das "Ethics Setting" eines autonomen Fahrzeugs entscheiden soll und ob sich das bekannte Trolley-Problem als Werkzeug zur Untersuchung der "Ethics of Crashing" überhaupt eignet. Der zweite Artikel untersucht, ob Menschen Vorbehalte gegenüber der Delegation moralischer Entscheidungen an Maschinen haben

Experimentelle und normative Ethik: Autonomes Fahren

This dissertation provides two published articles that tackle different, yet related, ethical issues associated with the introduction of the self-driving car. First, using the traditional form of normative argument this dissertation discusses the question of who should decide about the "ethics setting" of an autonomous vehicle and if the famous trolley problem is an adequate tool to examine the problem of the "ethics of crashing". The second publication tries to shed some light on possible empirical reservations people have towards delegating a moral task to an algorithm.Diese Dissertation besteht aus zwei publizierten Artikeln, die sich mit zwei unterschiedlichen, jedoch verwandten, ethischen Fragestellungen bezüglich der Einführung autonomer Fahrzeuge beschäftigen. Der erste Artikel befasst sich mit der Frage wer über das "Ethics Setting" eines autonomen Fahrzeugs entscheiden soll und ob sich das bekannte Trolley-Problem als Werkzeug zur Untersuchung der "Ethics of Crashing" überhaupt eignet. Der zweite Artikel untersucht, ob Menschen Vorbehalte gegenüber der Delegation moralischer Entscheidungen an Maschinen haben

Characteristics and treatment regimens across ERS SHARP severe asthma registries

Little is known about the characteristics and treatments of patients with severe asthma across Europe, but both are likely to vary. This is the first study in the European Respiratory Society Severe Heterogeneous Asthma Research collaboration, Patient-centred (SHARP) Clinical Research Collaboration and it is designed to explore these variations. Therefore, we aimed to compare characteristics of patients in European severe asthma registries and treatments before starting biologicals. This was a cross-sectional retrospective analysis of aggregated data from 11 national severe asthma registries that joined SHARP with established patient databases. Analysis of data from 3236 patients showed many differences in characteristics and lifestyle factors. Current smokers ranged from 0% (Poland and Sweden) to 9.5% (Belgium), mean body mass index ranged from 26.2 (Italy) to 30.6 kg\ub7m 122 (the UK) and the largest difference in mean pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s % predicted was 20.9% (the Netherlands versus Hungary). Before starting biologicals patients were treated differently between countries: mean inhaled corticosteroid dose ranged from 700 to 1335 \ub5g\ub7day 121 between those from Slovenia versus Poland when starting anti-interleukin (IL)-5 antibody and from 772 to 1344 \ub5g\ub7day 121 in those starting anti-IgE (Slovenia versus Spain). Maintenance oral corticosteroid use ranged from 21.0% (Belgium) to 63.0% (Sweden) and from 9.1% (Denmark) to 56.1% (the UK) in patients starting anti-IL-5 and anti-IgE, respectively. The severe asthmatic population in Europe is heterogeneous and differs in both clinical characteristics and treatment, often appearing not to comply with the current European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society guidelines definition of severe asthma. Treatment regimens before starting biologicals were different from inclusion criteria in clinical trials and varied between countries