4 ms·
> But if researchers delete the boilerplate ChatGPT phrases, the more sophisticated chatbot’s fluent text is “almost impossible” to spot, says Hodgkinson. Well
by pakitan 3y ago
> But if researchers delete the boilerplate ChatGPT phrases, the more sophisticated chatbot’s fluent text is “almost impossible” to spot, says Hodgkinson.
Well here is an idea - check the actual paper contents, rather than text patterns. If you still can't tell if it's made up by a bot, it's either not a paper worth of publishing or you're not much of a peer reviewer.
- nojs 3y agoHot take: The best thing about LLMs is that they’re going to expose all the areas of written work that were bullshit to begin with. Entire occupations and scientific disciplines will fall, one by one, initially claiming gen AI fraud, and eventually being forced to admit that there’s not any actual difference.
- tomlue 3y agoso strongly agree. Grant writing is another good example of this. So much nonsense writing that just wastes everyone's time.
- I_Am_Nous 3y agoWhat we need is an oracle machine LLM that spits out barely intelligible high-philosophy dialectic so we can have a go at proving that people should just say what they mean without inventing pseudo-languages that only make sense to them.
- jhbadger 3y agoYou can't win that way. Humans like Alan Sokal deliberately wrote nonsense in the 1990s that was mistaken for deep postmodernism, but it didn't really change anything.
- datadrivenangel 3y agoAutomated Humanities!
- jacquesm 3y agoI suspect we have some of that already here on HN.
- krkartikay 3y agoPessimistic take: after the two stages you mentioned, in the third stage they will carry on BSing as usual (only more efficiently with LLMs now) and there will be no one to point out that the emperor is naked.
- pakitan 3y agoThat's exactly the direction it's going in. As long as there is money in this, the charade will go on forever. It's not like no one knows that majority of the "science", produced currently, is with the purpose of advancing in the education hierarchy, not concerned with actually expanding human knowledge.
- Filligree 3y agoSpending your effort trying to advance human knowledge is, after all, a sure way to lose out and get fired. If you don't spend all your time chasing the measured goals, you won't match up to the people who do.
- philwelch 3y agoSokalGPT
- nvm0n2 3y agoThat isn't going to happen. People have been submitting computer-generated BS to journals for years. Nobody ever loses their jobs because nobody in academia cares, the media almost never report on it and people continue to be fed a diet of pseudo-scientific research. There's no mechanism that will bring this to an end beyond the academic scientific institutions becoming completely discredited. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01436-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01436-7 "Nonsensical research papers generated by a computer program are still popping up in the scientific literature many years after the problem was first seen, a study has revealed" They say "hundreds" but the actual scale of the problem is more like tens of thousands of identified papers and probably 10 or 100x more unidentified cases. https://dbrech.irit.fr/pls/apex/f?p=9999:1 https://dbrech.irit.fr/pls/apex/f?p=9999:1::::::
- contravariant 3y agoOf course there's always the risk that ChatGPT would actually write a paper worth reading. Reminds me of that oddly prescient r/xkcd comic (https://xkcd.com/810/ https://xkcd.com/810/), pointing out the same issue for spam in online forums.