Electron microscopy and calorimetry of proteins in supercooled water
Jun 26, 2023Best student printers in 2023
May 08, 2023Why Nature will not allow the use of generative AI in images and video
Sep 05, 2023Canon Selphy CP1500 Wireless Compact Photo Printer Review
May 26, 2023A crystal, but not as we know it
Apr 30, 2023Why Nature will not allow the use of generative AI in images and video
You have full access to this article via your institution.
Nature will not publish imagery created wholly or partly using generative AI.Credit: Artem Medvediev/Alamy
Should Nature allow generative artificial intelligence (AI) to be used in the creation of images and videos? This journal has been discussing, debating and consulting on this question for several months following the explosion of content created using generative AI tools such as ChatGPT and Midjourney, and the rapid increase in these platforms’ capabilities.
Apart from in articles that are specifically about AI, Nature will not be publishing any content in which photography, videos or illustrations have been created wholly or partly using generative AI, at least for the foreseeable future.
Artists, filmmakers, illustrators and photographers whom we commission and work with will be asked to confirm that none of the work they submit has been generated or augmented using generative AI (see go.nature.com/3c5vrtm).
Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our ground rules for their use
Why are we disallowing the use of generative AI in visual content? Ultimately, it is a question of integrity. The process of publishing — as far as both science and art are concerned — is underpinned by a shared commitment to integrity. That includes transparency. As researchers, editors and publishers, we all need to know the sources of data and images, so that these can be verified as accurate and true. Existing generative AI tools do not provide access to their sources so that such verification can happen.
Then there's attribution: when existing work is used or cited, it must be attributed. This is a core principle of science and art, and generative AI tools do not conform to this expectation.
Consent and permission are also factors. These must be obtained if, for example, people are being identified or the intellectual property of artists and illustrators is involved. Again, common applications of generative AI fail these tests.
Generative AI systems are being trained on images for which no efforts have been made to identify the source. Copyright-protected works are routinely being used to train generative AI without appropriate permissions. In some cases, privacy is also being violated — for example, when generative AI systems create what look like photographs or videos of people without their consent. In addition to privacy concerns, the ease with which these ‘deepfakes’ can be created is accelerating the spread of false information.
For now, Nature is allowing the inclusion of text that has been produced with the assistance of generative AI, providing this is done with appropriate caveats (see go.nature.com/3cbrjbb). The use of such large language model (LLM) tools needs to be documented in a paper's methods or acknowledgements section, and we expect authors to provide sources for all data, including those generated with the assistance of AI. Furthermore, no LLM tool will be accepted as an author on a research paper.
The world is on the brink of an AI revolution. This revolution holds great promise, but AI — and particularly generative AI — is also rapidly upending long-established conventions in science, art, publishing and more. These conventions have, in some cases, taken centuries to develop, but the result is a system that protects integrity in science and protects content creators from exploitation. If we’re not careful in our handling of AI, all of these gains are at risk of unravelling.
Many national regulatory and legal systems are still formulating their responses to the rise of generative AI. Until they catch up, as a publisher of research and creative works, Nature's stance will remain a simple ‘no’ to the inclusion of visual content created using generative AI.
Nature 618, 214 (2023)
doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-01546-4
Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our ground rules for their use
How Nature readers are using ChatGPT
‘Arms race with automation’: professors fret about AI-generated coursework
Preserve cultural diversity in author names
Correspondence 06 JUN 23
Tanzania's researchers offered US$22,000 to publish in international journals
News 06 JUN 23
EU council's ‘no pay’ publishing model draws mixed response
News 02 JUN 23
AI learns to write sorting software on its own
News & Views 07 JUN 23
ChatGPT: standard reporting guidelines for responsible use
Correspondence 06 JUN 23
Six tips for better coding with ChatGPT
Technology Feature 05 JUN 23
Anonymizing peer review makes the process more just
Career News 26 MAY 23
China overtakes United States on contribution to research in Nature Index
Nature Index 19 MAY 23
Why it's worth making computational methods easy to use
Career Column 27 APR 23
Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein (DE)
Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel (GEOMAR)
Saturday, 8 July 2023, Tokyo Sunday, 9 July 2023, Osaka Registration for this event is now open!
Tokyo and Osaka, Japan
Nature Careers
Based on the joint efforts of all staff and students as well as the substantial support of all sectors of the society.
Beijing, China
College of Water Sciences, Beijing Normal University
The Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) is an executive agency of the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, and works on behalf of the S
Addlestone, Surrey
Animal and Plant Health Agency
A cross-disciplinary research organization where cutting-edge science and technology drive the discovery of impactful Insights
Pudong New Area, Shanghai
BeiGene Institute
618