3 ms·
Only the most extreme pendant would argue that "searching for food" is an inappropriate simplification of "foraging." ChatGPT also simplifies the term of art "l
by _qua 4y ago
Only the most extreme pendant would argue that "searching for food" is an inappropriate simplification of "foraging." ChatGPT also simplifies the term of art "lithic assemblage" which, devoid of context, I don't think most would understand.
And, regardless of what the rest of the article may say the original abstract does NOT make it clear that the "stones created by macaques are quite distinct from what our ancestors made"--that information is not present in the abstract and therefore ChatGPT has no chance to preserve that subtlety. (Notwithstanding the original abstract uses the phrase "almost indistinguishable" which a reasonable reader cannot interpret as "quite distinct".)
- Retric 4y agoThe issue here is context. “lithic assemblage associated with a primate foraging behavior undertaken by long-tailed macaques” could be reasonably simplified to “stone assemblage associated with long-tailed macaques [searching for food]” or other foraging synonyms. However when you drop the word associated and say “macaques unintentionally produced them while” you are now describing a more direct relationship. Similarly the abstract clarifies the phrase “almost indistinguishable” with “likely to be confused with” etc which makes “almost identical” inappropriate. Anyway, this kind of mistake shows up frequently because of how ChatGPT abstracts words and phrases. The approach has real upsides, but it falls on its face when subtle differences actually matter.