This study explores the integration of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in informal digital learning of English (IDLE) practices, focusing on its potential to enhance language learning outcomes and addressing the technological challenges language teachers face in utilising AI-based tools to facilitate second language acquisition. Based on the research context of IDLE and holistic learning ecology and drawing on the theoretical frameworks of technological pedagogical and content knowledge and social cognitive theory, we performed a mixed-methods investigation with an empirical experiment to assess the effectiveness of GenAI followed by semi-structured interviews. The results suggest that the GenAI-mediated IDLE practices effectively improve college students’ oral proficiency in English from both technological and humanistic perspectives. However, results also indicate that the GenAI conversational partner alone is not adequate to provoke continuous extramural GenAI-mediated IDLE practices. We discuss the theoretical and pragmatic significance of GenAI-mediated IDLE in educational equity and reformation.

This paper is written at a tipping point in the development of generative AI and related technologies and services, which heralds a new battleground between humans and computers in the shaping of reality. Large language models (LLMs) scrape vast amounts of data from the so called ‘publicly available' internet, enabling new ways for the past to be represented and reimagined at scale, for individuals and societies. Moreover, generative AI changes what memory is and what memory does, pushing it beyond the realm of individual, human influence, and control, yet at the same time offering new modes of expression, conversation, creativity, and ways of overcoming forgetting. I argue here for a ‘third way of memory’, to recognise how the entanglements between humans and machines both enable and endanger human agency in the making and the remixing of individual and collective memory. This includes the growth of AI agents, with increasing autonomy and infinite potential to make, remake, and repurpose individual and collective pasts, beyond human consent and control. This paper outlines two key developments of generative AI-driven services: firstly, they untether the human past from the present, producing a past that was never actually remembered in the first place, and, secondly, they usher in a new ‘conversational’ past through the dialogical construction of memory in the present. Ultimately, developments in generative AI are making it more difficult for us to recognise the human influence on, and pathways from, the past, and that human agency over remembering and forgetting is increasingly challenged.

Despite the rapid advancement of generative Large Language Models (LLMs), there is still limited understanding of their potential impacts on engineering design (ED). This study fills this gap by collecting the tasks LLMs can perform within ED, using a Natural Language Processing analysis of 15,355 ED research papers. The results lead to a framework of LLM tasks in design, classifying them for different functions of LLMs and ED phases. Our findings illuminate the opportunities and risks of using LLMs for design, offering a foundation for future research and application in this domain.

Generative design is now a core capability of today's CAD systems enabling broader exploration of the design space. This paper presents a desktop review of 15 tools with the aim of characterising where the tools are used in the design process and to what extent they can be considered creative.The results showed that, despite their increasing capabilities, GD tools are unable to exhibit all phases of creativity and cannot be applied in all stages of the design process. This highlights the criticality of the human in design providing opportunities for GD to augment designer creativity.

The manual execution of failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) is time-consuming and error-prone. This article presents an approach in which large language models (LLMs) are integrated into FMEA. LLMs improve and accelerate FMEA with human in the loop. The discussion looks at software tools for FMEA and emphasizes that the tools must be tailored to the needs of the company. Our framework combines data collection, pre-processing and reliability assessment to automate FMEA. A case study validates this framework and demonstrates its efficiency and accuracy compared to manual FMEA.

The general public and scientific community alike are abuzz over the release of ChatGPT and GPT-4. Among many concerns being raised about the emergence and widespread use of tools based on large language models (LLMs) is the potential for them to propagate biases and inequities. We hope to open a conversation within the environmental data science community to encourage the circumspect and responsible use of LLMs. Here, we pose a series of questions aimed at fostering discussion and initiating a larger dialogue. To improve literacy on these tools, we provide background information on the LLMs that underpin tools like ChatGPT. We identify key areas in research and teaching in environmental data science where these tools may be applied, and discuss limitations to their use and points of concern. We also discuss ethical considerations surrounding the use of LLMs to ensure that as environmental data scientists, researchers, and instructors, we can make well-considered and informed choices about engagement with these tools. Our goal is to spark forward-looking discussion and research on how as a community we can responsibly integrate generative AI technologies into our work.

The recent commercial release of a new generation of chatbot systems, particularly those leveraging Transformer-based large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT, has caught the world by surprise and sparked debate about their potential consequences for society. While concerns about the existential threat posed by these technologies are often discussed, it is crucial to shift our focus towards the more immediate risks associated with their deployment. Such risks are further compounded by the lack of proactive measures addressing users’ literacy and the for-profit model via which these chatbots are distributed. Drawing on research in computer science and other fields, this paper looks at the immediate risks triggered by these products and reflects on the role of law within a broader policy directed at steering generative artificial intelligence technology towards the common good. It also reviews the relevant amendments proposed by the European Parliament to the European Commission’s proposal for an AI Act.

A lot has happened since OpenAI released ChatGPT to the public in November 2022. We review how things unfolded over the course of the year, tracking significant events and announcements from the tech giants leading the generative AI race and from other players of note; along the way we note the wider impacts of the technology’s progress.

With the wide availability of large language models and generative AI, there are four primary paradigms for human–AI collaboration: human-only, AI-only (ChatGPT-4), augmented human (where a human makes the final decision with AI output as a reference), or augmented AI (where the AI makes the final decision with human output as a reference). In partnership with one of the world’s leading consulting firms, we enlisted professional content creators and ChatGPT-4 to create advertising content for products and persuasive content for campaigns following the aforementioned paradigms. First, we find that, contrary to the expectations of some of the existing algorithm aversion literature on conventional predictive AI, the content generated by generative AI and augmented AI is perceived as of higher quality than that produced by human experts and augmented human experts. Second, revealing the source of content production reduces—but does not reverse—the perceived quality gap between human- and AI-generated content. This bias in evaluation is predominantly driven by human favoritism rather than AI aversion: Knowing that the same content is created by a human expert increases its (reported) perceived quality, but knowing that AI is involved in the creation process does not affect its perceived quality. Further analysis suggests this bias is not due to a ‘quality prime’ as knowing the content they are about to evaluate comes from competent creators (e.g., industry professionals and state-of-the-art AI) without knowing exactly that the creator of each piece of content does not increase participants’ perceived quality.

Generative AI algorithms that are able to generate creative output are progressing at tremendous speed. This paper presents a research agenda for Generative AI-based support for designers. We present examples of existing applications and thus illustrate the possible application space of Generative AI reflecting the current state of this technology. Furthermore, we provide a theoretical foundation for AI-supported design, based on a typology of design knowledge and the concept of evolutionary creativity. Both concepts are discussed in relation to the changing roles of AI and the human designer. The outlined research agenda presents 10 research opportunities for possible AI-support to augment the designer of the future. The results presented in this paper provide researchers with an introduction to and overview of Generative AI, as well as the theoretical understanding of potential implications for the future of the design discipline.