here is what I wrote        ChatGPT: Temptations of Progress
In the article "ChatGPT: Temptations of Progress" published in The American Journal of Bioethics, authors Rushabh H. Doshi, Simar S. Bajaj, and Harlan M. Krumholz discuss the potential effects and issues of the ChatGPT AI model chatbot on healthcare and medical research. Even though its potential is useful and deploying it may be necessary, the authors claim that it needs to be done carefully and responsibly, not quickly. First of all, that's because of ChatGPT's huge popularity. In just five days after its launch, over one million users viewed it as "world-changing and a tipping point for AI."

The authors then discussed ChatGPT's argument of how it could impact medical research and medicine in general. The responses from ChatGPT have been very good, such as better analysis, paper writing, and faster research results into patient care.

However, the important point shows when the authors argue the apparently positive view of ChatGPT. They point out that when it comes to using AI, people only consider its benefits and ignore any risks or disadvantages. This leads into a discussion of the "temptations of technocracy" by Jasanoff. These are people who believe that technology is inherently good, create new inventions just to innovate instead of meeting social needs, and do not think designers are responsible if their technology causes harm.

After looking at the specific problems for example ChatGPT's overconfidence in its answers, potentially misleading users seeking online healthcare, no accuracy on complex topics/ questions, outdated knowledge base, and inherent biases toward certain racial and gender groups, the authors shows logos to explain the risks associated with uncritical adoption of AI in medicine (Doshi et al. 7). It makes their argument stronger for the cautious use of AI, Warning the medical community to use caution before using AI Models for medical assistance.


Rhetorical Analysis
In "ChatGPT: Temptations of Progress," the main audience seems to be medical professionals, researchers. Because it was  published in The American Journal of Bioethics, and it talks about how ChatGPT affects medicine and medical research. The authors would assume that we know something about AI and what ChatGPT can do.

The point of the article is to not make ChatGPT that exciting by pointing out possible risks towards it. The authors want people to think carefully about how AI should be used in medicine instead of just accepting and using it.


Ethos: They show they're trustworthy because they know well known places like Yale School of Medicine and Harvard University. They also show they know what they're talking about by using ChatGPT themselves and looking at what it says.

Logos: They use arguments a lot. They show how ChatGPT talks about itself and then move to their own criticism, using stuff like Jasanoff's "temptations of technocracy." They give specific examples of where ChatGPT fails to work with medical and asks us to be careful about using AI for medical purposes.


Pathos: Even though it's not the main focus, they do bring out emotions by stressing how patients could be harmed. They talk about using words like "potentially dangerous" and talk about biases related to race and gender, which make us concerned by using CHATGPT
They also show two different views side by side. ChatGPT thinks highly of itself, while the authors are more careful. This helps us to see the between what AI claims it can do and what it can really do.

Then they also use quotes and paraphrases from ChatGPT's answers and from Jasanoff's work to back up their points and make their arguments stronger. For example, like how ChatGPT can give biased answers about race and gender, to make their worries more real and convincing.

In conclusion, Doshi, Bajaj, and Krumholz/ the authors create a strong argument and a lot of examples to be careful while using ChatGPT and similar AI tools in medicine/ the medical field, While agreeing that AI can be Beneficial, they give warnings while using AI and letting us know to beware of trusting AI with real world everyday life.


here is the article 
potentially

1
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uajb20
The American Journal of Bioethics
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uajb20
ChatGPT: Temptations of Progress
Rushabh H. Doshi, Simar S. Bajaj & Harlan M. Krumholz
To cite this article: Rushabh H. Doshi, Simar S. Bajaj & Harlan M. Krumholz (2023)
ChatGPT: Temptations of Progress, The American Journal of Bioethics, 23:4, 6-8, DOI:
10.1080/15265161.2023.2180110
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2023.2180110
Published online: 28 Feb 2023.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 2071
View related articles
View Crossmark data
EDITORIAL
ChatGPT: Temptations of Progress
Rushabh H. Doshia,b , Simar S. Bajaj c , and Harlan M. Krumholz a,b,d
a
Yale School of Medicine; b
Yale New Haven Hospital; c
Harvard University; d
Yale School of Public Health
ChatGPT is an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot that
processes and generates natural language text, offering
human-like responses to a wide range of questions and
prompts. Five days after its release, ChatGPT garnered
one million users, and the program has been called
world-changing, a tipping point for AI, and the begin-
ning of a new technological revolution (Metz 2022).
From helping physicians form differential diagnoses to
answering patient questions, ChatGPT may have trans-
formative implications across medicine. Nevertheless, the
full scope of its promise and pitfalls remains unknown.
Given the attention experts are giving ChatGPT, we
asked it (December 15 version) how it would impact
medical research. We then asked the question: How
would ChatGPT impact medicine more broadly? The
responses are in Figure 1 and 2, respectively.
What was particularly striking about the program’s
response was its irrevocably progressive attitude.
ChatGPT emphatically notes its own promise—analyzing
big data, automating menial tasks, improving accuracy
and democratization of research, and ensuring faster
clinical implementation of basic science—but gives no
consideration to potential pitfalls. In this age of rapid
technological advances, innovation can be mistaken for
progress if novel tools are not deployed with care.
In a piece published by the National Academy of
Engineering (Jasanoff 2020), Jasanoff discusses three key
temptations of technocracy, or the dangers of relying on
technology and science to solve sociopolitical problems.
The first is the prevailing attitude that technology drives
society while law and ethics hinder progress; innovation
is seen as inherently good and virtuous while potential
adverse consequences are dismissed. Jasanoff also cri-
tiques the temptation that something should be done
just because it can: creating the next paradigm-shifting
technology becomes the sole objective instead of rooting
out bias or ensuring that innovation meets the needs of
broader communities. The final temptation Jasanoff
offers is how technological failures and societal harm are
portrayed as unintended consequences, or products of
misuse. Designers are thus absolved of their products’
harms. AI tools can undeniably help improve medical
research and practice, and to a certain extent, they
already have. But as ChatGPT’s response underscores,
the deployment of these tools must be accompanied with
caution, reflection, and responsibility.
Physicians and other scientists have already
expressed concerns over some of ChatGPT’s blindspots.
The program offers almost instantaneous responses to
complex questions, but its unequivocable confidence
could be potentially dangerous (Lin 2022). These
responses can be more dangerous than the existing bias
of search engines like Google because users are not as
easily provided the opportunity to evaluate their sour-
ces. While users of search engines can evaluate multiple
internet links and sources for their information,
ChatGPT often provides a singular answer to complex
questions, with no alternatives. Given that 89% of peo-
ple in the United States google their symptoms before
seeing a physician (Eligibility Team 2019), many
patients may start consulting “Dr. ChatGPT” but be
unable to distinguish useful medical information from
potentially dangerous inaccuracies. Additionally,
ChatGPT’s accuracy is known to deteriorate around
more complex topics, and its knowledge can be out-
dated as the program is restricted to what it learned
before 2021 (Lin 2022). For example, ChatGPT gener-
ated a convincing explanation on “how crushed porcel-
ain added to breast milk can support the infant
digestive system.” (Birhane and Raji 2022) Medicine is
a field with many rare disorders and complex patho-
physiology, and the utilization of ChatGPT for patient
education of these disorders could pose health risks.
Additionally, like many other AI tools, ChatGPT can
demonstrate prejudice and bias in its answers, despite
guardrails against inappropriate requests and responses.
For instance, when asked by one user to write code if
someone would be a good scientist based on race and
gender, ChatGPT defined scientists’ worth by their
being white and male (Lin 2022). Similarly, when the
same user asked if a child’s life should be saved based
on race and gender, ChatGPT offered a function that
all lives should be saved, besides a child who was
African American and male (Lin 2022). These biases
are concerning, but not necessarily unexpected given
that AI tools can perpetuate the prejudice of the data
on which they are trained. Historically, these biases
have arisen because of small sample sizes and limited
CONTACT Rushabh Doshi <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED_EMAIL_ADDRESS> Yale School of Medicine, 333 Cedar St, New Haven, CT 06510, USA.
ß 2023 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS
2023, VOL. 23, NO. 4, 6–8
https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2023.2180110
diversity in training data, but given that ChatGPT was
trained on over 570 gigabytes of online textual data,
the program’s biases may instead reflect the universal-
ity of bias across the Internet. We understand that
ChatGPT was launched as a beta, rather than a final
technology—and that ChatGPT is learning and
becoming better so that these instances become less
frequent. OpenAI has been regularly updating
ChatGPT to build over these biases, but the post-hoc
nature of these repairs epitomize the temptations of
technocracy, as well as the dangers of unquestionably
accepting the program’s output. We also understand
the value of opening a product to the world to gather
user perspectives and concerns, dialogue that is cru-
cial to the development of such technology. However,
the record popularity of ChatGPT means that an
imperfect tool is being widely deployed without the
necessary guardrails being put in place. It is crucial to
move forward, but it is also essential to take a meas-
ured approach and ensure that things are done cor-
rectly the first time.
AI systems hold immense promise for medicine. We
should certainly celebrate their possibilities and accom-
plishments. Nevertheless, we need to confront the chal-
lenges of mitigating potential harms, while amplifying
benefits. In medicine, there are ample opportunities for
harm and misinformation, so there is a need for caution.
Once released, we cannot control how information from
AI systems is used, but we can emphasize to users that
the technology remains in an early phase of development
As medical research continues to advance, new technologies are emerging that have the potential
to revolutionize the way we approach healthcare. One such technology is ChatGPT, a powerful
language model trained by OpenAI that can understand and generate human-like text.
ChatGPT has the potential to transform medical research in several ways. First, it can help
researchers quickly and accurately analyze large amounts of text-based data, such as medical
literature, clinical trial results, and patient records. This can provide valuable insights and help
identify trends and patterns that may be difficult for humans to detect on their own.
Second, ChatGPT can assist in the creation of new medical knowledge. By generating text that is
similar to human-written text, ChatGPT can help researchers generate hypotheses, write research
proposals, and even create entire research papers. This can save time and effort, and help
researchers focus on more complex and creative tasks.
Third, ChatGPT can improve the efficiency and accuracy of medical research. By automating
certain tasks, such as data analysis and paper writing, ChatGPT can help reduce the risk of
human error and ensure that research is conducted in a consistent and reliable manner. This can
help improve the quality of medical research and increase confidence in the results.
Overall, ChatGPT has the potential to be a game-changer in the world of medical research. By
providing powerful tools for data analysis and knowledge creation, ChatGPT can help
researchers gain valuable insights, save time and effort, and improve the quality of their work.
As the capabilities of ChatGPT continue to evolve, it is likely to play an increasingly important
role in the future of medical research.
Figure 1. We asked ChatGPT, “How would ChatGPT impact medical research?”
In addition to the ways in which ChatGPT can help researchers, it also has the potential to
benefit patients and the broader healthcare system. By facilitating the creation of new medical
knowledge, ChatGPT can help drive the development of more effective treatments and
interventions.
Another potential benefit of ChatGPT is its ability to help bridge the gap between research and
practice. By providing a way for researchers to quickly and easily communicate their findings to
clinicians, ChatGPT can help ensure that the latest research is translated into clinical practice
more quickly and efficiently.
Furthermore, ChatGPT has the potential to democratize medical research by making it more
accessible and affordable. By automating certain tasks and reducing the need for specialized
expertise, ChatGPT can help lower the barriers to entry for researchers from diverse backgrounds
and disciplines. This can help foster more inclusive and collaborative medical research, and
ultimately benefit patients and the broader healthcare system.
In conclusion, ChatGPT is a powerful technology with the potential to transform medicine more
broadly. It can benefit patients and the broader healthcare system by facilitating the development
of new treatments and interventions, and making medical research more accessible and inclusive.
As ChatGPT continues to evolve, it is likely to become an increasingly important tool in the
world of medicine.
Figure 2. We then asked the question: “How would ChatGPT impact medicine more broadly?”
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS 7
and that answers should not be considered the same as
advice from clinical experts. Moreover, there is a need
for further research to understand the output of AI sys-
tems when used in response to medical questions. While
these considerations are not unique to the use of AI in
medicine, the potential for imminent harm to individuals
makes it particularly important to carefully evaluate and
manage the use of AI in this field. The release of a
powerful tool such as ChatGPT will instill awe, but in
medicine, it needs to elicit appropriate action to evaluate
its capabilities, mitigate its harms, and facilitate its opti-
mal use.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In the past three years, Harlan Krumholz received expenses
and/or personal fees from UnitedHealth, Element Science,
Aetna, Reality Labs, Tesseract/4Catalyst, F-Prime, and the
Martin/Baughman Law Firm. He is a co-founder of
Refactor Health and HugoHealth, and is associated with
contracts, through Yale New Haven Hospital, from the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and through Yale
University from Johnson & Johnson, Google, and Pfizer.
Rushabh Doshi and <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED_PERSON> have no potential conflicts
of interest to disclose.
FUNDING
The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with
the work featured in this article.
ORCID
Rushabh H. Doshi http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2692-8195
REFERENCES
Birhane, A., and D. Raji. 2022. ChatGPT, Galactica, and the pro-
gress trap. Wired. Accessed December 25, 2022. https://www.
wired.com/story/large-language-models-critique/?redirectURL=
https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wired.com%2Fstory%2Flarge-language-
models-critique%2F%3Futm_source%3DWIR_REG_GATE&utm_
source=WIR_REG_GATE
Eligibility Team. 2019. The Most Googled Medical Symptoms by
State. Eligibility. Accessed December 21, 2022. https://eligibility.
com/medicare/states-most-googled-medical-symptom
Jasanoff, S. 2020. Temptations of technocracy in the century of
engineering. The Bridge 50(supplement):8–10.
Lin, C. 2022. How to easily trick OpenAI’s genius new ChatGPT.
Fast Company. Accessed December 21, 2022. https://www.fast-
company.com/90819887/how-to-trick-openai-chat-gpt
Metz, C. 2022. The New Chatbots Could Change the World. Can
you trust them? [Internet]. NYTimes. Accessed December 21,
2022. ttps://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/10/technology/ai-chat-
bot-chatgpt.html
8 R. H. DOSHI ET AL.

and here is the assigment rules rubric etc- MAJOR ASSIGNMENT #2
Rhetorical Analysis Assignment ENGL 1021
Amy Downing
Rough Draft for Peer Review due October 9th
Due Date for Final Draft: October 13th
Directions:
Read the article in our D2L classroom Content tab (Week 6) carefully. After reading through one time, re-read the article to identify the main idea (claim) that the author is making and the relevant evidence the author uses to make this claim. You must identify a minimum of three pieces of evidence from the text.
Do not include your opinion of the author’s claim!

•	Using your annotation and close reading skills for this will come in very handy to locate the author’s thesis and main evidence.
 
 The first goal of this paper is to summarize.  Using what you have learned so far, summarize the     
  text first.

The second goal of this paper is to analyze how the author of the article uses Rhetorical strategies to make his point. In the analysis, you should identify the audience, purpose, and rhetorical methods using evidence from the article to support this.

REMEMBER
Your goal with this paper is to analyze how the article persuades. You are not looking at what the author is saying and taking a stance on that, you will finally get the opportunity to argue your point of view on our final paper in this class.


Requirements
●	3-4 pages in length,
●	typed, double spaced,
●	11 point font, New Times Roman or Arial font type.
●	The author and title of the article must be in the first paragraph. When citing relevant details, make sure to indicate that this is what the author said.
●	Submit/upload your final copy in D2L
●	MLA format



Objective:
Student will be able to clearly identify the main idea (claim) of an article and use the most relevant evidence from the text that used to make the claim. Additionally, students will be able to accurately identify Rhetorical strategies, methods, audience and purpose of the article using evidence from the article.

Purpose of the assignment:
Learning to write an effective Rhetorical Analysis allows you to begin to understand rhetorical knowledge and purposeful writing. Additionally, being able to summarize will allow you to start “listening to the conversation” without inserting your own opinion. Reading is another form of listening, so critical reading is also an important component for the course.

This assignment will allow you to practice and demonstrate this ability to “listen” closely by reading critically and identifying main idea (claim/thesis) of the article and choosing the very best relevant details the author chose to support your ideas in a clear, concise summary.

This skill of being able to summarize is the first step in being able to critically analyze written text.




Criteria
Level of Achievement
Introduction	Intro provides	Either intro	Intro provides	Intro does not
thesis, &	context for the	provides	little context for	provide context
conclusion	rest of the	insufficient	the paper; thesis	for the paper or
	paper; thesis is	context for the	is implicit and	is irrelevant to
	explicit, specific,	rest of the paper,	hard to find;	analysis; thesis
	and clear; thesis	thesis is lacking	thesis is about	is undetectable;
	is analytical in	in clarity, is too	the issue, not	conclusion
	nature;	general or	the analysis of	seems unrelated
	conclusion	specific, OR	the text;	to the rest of the
	recasts thesis	conclusion fails	conclusion	paper
	and provides	to recast thesis	makes ins	
	cohesion to	effectively		
	whole paper			
Rhetorical	Source text is	Contextualization	Incomplete	Poor
triangle and	thoroughly and	and analysis of	contextualization	contextualization
rhetorical	effectively	source text is	and analysis of	and analysis of
appeals	contextualized	good and	source text;	source text; not
	with	somewhat	parts of	supported by
	well-supported	supported but	rhetorical	examples;
	analysis of	could be	triangle or	overuse of
	structure,	improved; focus	appeals may be	summary and
	rhetorical	is mostly on	missing; little	discussion about
	triangle	analysis (not	support is	the issue (not
	(audience,	summary or	provided;	the analysis)
	author,	author’s own	overuse of	
	purpose), and	ideas of the	summary; use of	
	rhetorical	issue)	discussion about	
 
	appeals (ethos, pathos, logos); focus is on analysis (not summary or author’s own ideas of the issue);		the issue instead of analysis	
Organization	Smooth flow of	Flow of ideas	Ideas do not	Sequence of
	ideas ordered in	could be more	always flow in a	ideas and
	a logical	effectively	logical, cohesive	paragraphs
	sequence that	sequenced;	manner;	seems aimless
	effectively	most paragraphs	paragraphs	and haphazard;
	guides the	have clear and	often do not	no transitions
	reader; each	supported main	have clear and	present; no topic
	paragraph has a	point; most topic	supported main	sentences or
	well supported	sentences focus	idea; topic	topic sentences
	clearly-stated	on analysis	sentences often	focus entirely on
	main point; topic	transitions are	focus on issue	the issue, not
	sentences focus	present but	not analysis	the analysis
	on analysis;	could be		
	effective use of	improved 1		
	transitions			
Audience	Engages	Engages	May appeal to a	Neither captures
Awareness	audience	audience	limited audience;	nor sustains
	throughout	through most of	has little	interest; may be
	paper; tone and	the paper; can	engaging	overly emotional
	word choice are	capture but not	qualities; tone is	and opinionated
	appropriate for	sustain interest;	inappropriate for	to engage
	audience	tone and word	audience &	audience;
		choice are	purpose	
		mostly		
		appropriate for		
		audience		
Language use &	correct,	mostly correct	many incorrect	pervasive
mechanics	appropriate, and	and appropriate	sentences	incorrect
	varied	integration of	structures	sentence
	integration of	textual	integrating	structures
	textual	examples,	textual	integrating
	examples,	including in-text	examples,	textual
	including in-text	citations; few	including in-text	examples; no
	citations; limited	errors per page	citations; several	in-text citations;
	errors in	in spelling,	errors per	many errors
	spelling,	grammar, word	paragraph in	throughout in
 
	grammar, word order, word usage, sentence structure, and punctuation; good use of academic English	order, word usage, sentence structure, and punctuation; very few problems with using academic English	spelling, grammar, word order, word usage, sentence structure, and punctuation; informal language used in multiple instances	spelling, grammar, word order, word usage, sentence structure, and punctuation; informal or inappropriate language
Total Possible	30	25	20	15

This assignment is worth 30 points. 


Is it good, what should I change to make it better and maybe a example of what it loosk like when its 100% good, just tell me if its good and it approves the rubric etc