# The moral authority of ChatGPT

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.07098 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.07098/

## Key facts

- Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 1 of its 17 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 13 Jan 2023.

## Builds on (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Zombies in the Loop? Humans Trust Untrustworthy AI-Advisors for Ethical Decisions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.16122/) (2021)

## Built on by (most cited first, 11 of 11)

- [A Categorical Archive of ChatGPT Failures](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.03494/) (2023)
- [Summary of ChatGPT-Related Research and Perspective Towards the Future of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.01852/) (2023)
- [Evaluating ChatGPT's Information Extraction Capabilities: An Assessment of Performance, Explainability, Calibration, and Faithfulness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.11633/) (2023)
- [A Systematic Study and Comprehensive Evaluation of ChatGPT on Benchmark Datasets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18486/) (2023)
- [An Empirical Study on Information Extraction using Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14450/) (2023)
- [Primacy Effect of ChatGPT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.13206/) (2023)
- [Are Chatbots Ready for Privacy-Sensitive Applications? An Investigation into Input Regurgitation and Prompt-Induced Sanitization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.15008/) (2023)
- [Ethical ChatGPT: Concerns, Challenges, and Commandments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.10646/) (2023)
- [Evaluating ChatGPT on Medical Information Extraction Tasks: Performance, Explainability and Beyond](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.21767/) (2026)
- [Advancing AI with Integrity: Ethical Challenges and Solutions in Neural Machine Translation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.01070/) (2024)
- [How much reliable is ChatGPT's prediction on Information Extraction under Input Perturbations?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.05088/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

ChatGPT is not only fun to chat with, but it also searches information, answers questions, and gives advice. With consistent moral advice, it might improve the moral judgment and decisions of users, who often hold contradictory moral beliefs. Unfortunately, ChatGPT turns out highly inconsistent as a moral advisor. Nonetheless, it influences users' moral judgment, we find in an experiment, even if they know they are advised by a chatting bot, and they underestimate how much they are influenced. Thus, ChatGPT threatens to corrupt rather than improves users' judgment. These findings raise the question of how to ensure the responsible use of ChatGPT and similar AI. Transparency is often touted but seems ineffective. We propose training to improve digital literacy.