27 ms·

If it's just a better Google Translate, then I don't see the problem. If it's used to actually write the first version because people can't write or sort out th

by the_af 3y ago

If it's just a better Google Translate, then I don't see the problem. If it's used to actually write the first version because people can't write or sort out their ideas... I dunno. Is there any evidence that it's primarily used by non-native English speakers for this purpose, though? (edit: just saw the list of authors, probably this is the case, at least in this context).

shadowgovt 3y ago
> If it's used to actually write the first version because people can't write or sort out their ideas... I dunno. For what it's worth, I'm also 10,000% on board with that use case. I have definitely stared at a blank piece of paper with writer's block because I couldn't write the introduction for a paper before. If ChatGPT gets somebody past that block, more power to it. Every paper is required to start with some novel variant of "from the dawn of time humanity has wondered if..." when all you want to say is "We discovered some stuff, here it is." I am super in favor of automating the step that nobody wants to write, nobody wants to read, and no journal will accept without its presence. Reporting novel scientific findings was never supposed to be an exercise in fluent English authorship mastery.
- SoftTalker 3y ago
  I haven't written scientific papers, but for other reports or writeups I always start with the meat of what I want to say. I write the introduction later, once I know what it is that I'm introducing.
- the_af 3y ago
  > I am super in favor of automating the step that nobody wants to write, nobody wants to read, and no journal will accept without its presence. You make a good point. Maybe the bits that can be automated are the zero-value bits, and therefore the best conclusion would be to get rid of them? In other words, if it can be automated, it's not real content. I'd be wary of people writing summaries or conclusions using ChatGPT though, because ChatGPT can write very convincing crap that completely misses the point. Someone who is careless enough to forget removing the "Regenerate response" part of the output may be as careless reviewing whether the conclusion truly says what they meant it to say. As an aside, I've asked ChatGPT 3.5 to provide interpretations of works of fiction of which I know the most common ones (e.g. "this is a parable about [...]", "this is a warning against authoritarianism", etc), and ChatGPT sometimes comes up with stuff that completely misses the point; but if you aren't familiar with the work (haven't read it except for a summary) you could mistake it for a valid interpretation!

by the_af 3y ago

shadowgovt 3y ago

> If it's used to actually write the first version because people can't write or sort out their ideas... I dunno. For what it's worth, I'm also 10,000% on board with that use case. I have definitely stared at a blank piece of paper with writer's block because I couldn't write the introduction for a paper before. If ChatGPT gets somebody past that block, more power to it. Every paper is required to start with some novel variant of "from the dawn of time humanity has wondered if..." when all you want to say is "We discovered some stuff, here it is." I am super in favor of automating the step that nobody wants to write, nobody wants to read, and no journal will accept without its presence. Reporting novel scientific findings was never supposed to be an exercise in fluent English authorship mastery.

SoftTalker 3y ago
I haven't written scientific papers, but for other reports or writeups I always start with the meat of what I want to say. I write the introduction later, once I know what it is that I'm introducing.
the_af 3y ago
> I am super in favor of automating the step that nobody wants to write, nobody wants to read, and no journal will accept without its presence. You make a good point. Maybe the bits that can be automated are the zero-value bits, and therefore the best conclusion would be to get rid of them? In other words, if it can be automated, it's not real content. I'd be wary of people writing summaries or conclusions using ChatGPT though, because ChatGPT can write very convincing crap that completely misses the point. Someone who is careless enough to forget removing the "Regenerate response" part of the output may be as careless reviewing whether the conclusion truly says what they meant it to say. As an aside, I've asked ChatGPT 3.5 to provide interpretations of works of fiction of which I know the most common ones (e.g. "this is a parable about [...]", "this is a warning against authoritarianism", etc), and ChatGPT sometimes comes up with stuff that completely misses the point; but if you aren't familiar with the work (haven't read it except for a summary) you could mistake it for a valid interpretation!