4 ms·

It depends on how he is using it. If he is using it to insert new content into his papers it is concerning. If he is using it to reword his papers but the conte

It depends on how he is using it. If he is using it to insert new content into his papers it is concerning. If he is using it to reword his papers but the content remains the same it's less concerning.

suddenclarity 4y ago
It seems to be more than that: > Magazinov mentioned that a non-existent “vegetative electron microscopy” appears in two studies by Luque published with Iranian colleagues.
- cwmoore 4y ago
  Is it unreasonable to surmise that vegetative electrons are very small, thus the microscopy?
  - akiselev 4y ago
    The decision to turn off life support for vegetative electrons was made at the first Solvay Conference in 1911, at which point they ceased to exist in our universe in a total wave function collapse. ChatGPT has apparently overfitted on late 19th century theoretical physics journals.
    - antonvs 4y ago
      But there’s speculation that vegetative electrons may still exist in the brains of the people who have been peer reviewing these papers.
- belter 4y ago
  Well there are Electron Microscope studies of the vegetative Cellular Life, so that is not the knife he will fall on...
KurtMueller 4y ago
| If he is using it to reword his papers but the content remains the same it's less concerning. How is that less concerning? Rewording conclusions or the abstract, even subtly, can change the meaning of those words and of those sections.
- Turing_Machine 4y ago
  I don't see how this would be much different from a non-native English speaker getting a colleague to help with the English phrasing of a paper (this is very, very common). As long as the original researcher reads what's been written, and agrees with it, and the output gives an accurate description of the procedure and results, there's no harm done that I can see. Edit: I mean in general, not necessarily in this specific case. This guy seems a little...questionable...for other reasons.
  - simiones 4y ago
    > I don't see how this would be much different from a non-native English speaker getting a colleague to help with the English phrasing of a paper (this is very, very common). It's as different as ChatGPT is from an English-speaking scientist colleague. For example, a colleague will probably ask if they're not sure which is the intended meaning of a phrase. ChatGPT will generate one of the possible meanings.
    - em-bee 4y ago
      so what? the author can still proofread it and decide if that was the right meaning.
      - Turing_Machine 4y ago
        Right. That's the author's responsibility, whether he or she is using ChatGPT, a human colleague, an old-school tool like Grammarly or classic Google Translate, or even older-school tools like paper dictionaries. In all those cases, mistakes can be made and unintended meanings can creep in. The author has to check the output, definitely, but that doesn't mean those tools shouldn't be used at all.

suddenclarity 4y ago

It seems to be more than that: > Magazinov mentioned that a non-existent “vegetative electron microscopy” appears in two studies by Luque published with Iranian colleagues.

cwmoore 4y ago
Is it unreasonable to surmise that vegetative electrons are very small, thus the microscopy?
- akiselev 4y ago
  The decision to turn off life support for vegetative electrons was made at the first Solvay Conference in 1911, at which point they ceased to exist in our universe in a total wave function collapse. ChatGPT has apparently overfitted on late 19th century theoretical physics journals.
  - antonvs 4y ago
    But there’s speculation that vegetative electrons may still exist in the brains of the people who have been peer reviewing these papers.
belter 4y ago
Well there are Electron Microscope studies of the vegetative Cellular Life, so that is not the knife he will fall on...

KurtMueller 4y ago

| If he is using it to reword his papers but the content remains the same it's less concerning. How is that less concerning? Rewording conclusions or the abstract, even subtly, can change the meaning of those words and of those sections.

Turing_Machine 4y ago
I don't see how this would be much different from a non-native English speaker getting a colleague to help with the English phrasing of a paper (this is very, very common). As long as the original researcher reads what's been written, and agrees with it, and the output gives an accurate description of the procedure and results, there's no harm done that I can see. Edit: I mean in general, not necessarily in this specific case. This guy seems a little...questionable...for other reasons.
- simiones 4y ago
  > I don't see how this would be much different from a non-native English speaker getting a colleague to help with the English phrasing of a paper (this is very, very common). It's as different as ChatGPT is from an English-speaking scientist colleague. For example, a colleague will probably ask if they're not sure which is the intended meaning of a phrase. ChatGPT will generate one of the possible meanings.
  - em-bee 4y ago
    so what? the author can still proofread it and decide if that was the right meaning.
    - Turing_Machine 4y ago
      Right. That's the author's responsibility, whether he or she is using ChatGPT, a human colleague, an old-school tool like Grammarly or classic Google Translate, or even older-school tools like paper dictionaries. In all those cases, mistakes can be made and unintended meanings can creep in. The author has to check the output, definitely, but that doesn't mean those tools shouldn't be used at all.