All levels of research are being changed by the rise ofartificial intelligence(AI).
Dont have time to read that journal article?
AI-powered tools such asTLDRthiswill summarise it for you.
Are your human research participants too expensive or complicated to manage?
Not a problem trysynthetic participantsinstead.
Each of these tools suggests AI could be superior to humans in outlining and explaining concepts or ideas.
But can humans be replaced when it comes to qualitative research?
And what we found should temper enthusiasm for artificial responses over the words of human participants.
It’s free, every week, in your inbox.
Our research is looking at how people might navigate mobile dating during the pandemic in Aotearoa New Zealand.
As part of this ongoing research, we prompt participants to develop stories in response to hypothetical scenarios.
Each participant received a gift voucher for their time.
Participants described characters navigating the challenges of Zoom dates and clashing over vaccination statuses or wearing masks.
Others wrote passionate love stories with eyebrow-raising details.
This time many of the stories felt off.
Word choices were quite stilted or overly formal.
And each story was quite moralistic in terms of what one should do in a situation.
Is AI the problem?
Perhaps the biggest threat to human research is not AI, but rather the philosophy that underscores it.
In these types of studies, human reasoning or behaviour is often measured through scorecards or yes/no statements.
In general, we found AI poorly simulated these experiences.
There are additional implications for research.
If anything, the limitations of AI reemphasise the importance of being human in social research.
