2 ms·
If you look at the papers from the list, some of the authors respond to the comment which asks for clarifications on ChatGPT usage (for those who didn't read TF
by the_af 3y ago
If you look at the papers from the list, some of the authors respond to the comment which asks for clarifications on ChatGPT usage (for those who didn't read TFA, this is detected mostly because they cut & pasted ChatGPT's response without removing extraneous parts like "Regenerate response" from the UI! So not only do they rely on ChatGPT, they also don't know how to use it well).
What's interesting is that even when they reply, authors don't seem to respond to the ethics/standards issue of actually using ChatGPT. Well, some do ("I will not do it again" is basically what one of the authors says, which reads like a childish response to me), but many claim it was a "mistake" -- the mistake being... forgetting to remove the boilerplate and "regenerate response" garbage! Uh-oh.
I think an acceptable use of AI would be in translation, basically a better Google Translate. But is this what's happening here?
- sonicanatidae 3y agoI find it helpful in working with technology. I have been experimenting with generating powershell scripts using chatgpt, and aside from a few syntax errors or localization, the scripts are a great starting point. Instead of writing the whole script. I can have ChatGPT write it, then I just have to clean it up, address any errors and localize.
- sdenton4 3y agoYeah, exactly this. Paragraphs of condensed scientific text after six rounds of collaborator revisions are typically a mess - ChatGPT is great for suggesting a more readable alternative, and then further crafting into something actually-good. I think a lot of the hand-wringing neglects that there's a range of ways to use LLMs. Text-refactor is obviously perfectly ethical, unless you're gunning for the Butlerian Jihad, no worse than the grammar checker in Word.
- the_af 3y ago> I think a lot of the hand-wringing neglects that there's a range of ways to use LLMs. You and the comment you replied to seem to be making an argument about something neither my own comment nor TFA said. Nobody is claiming LLMs or ChatGPT aren't useful. The argument is about using it to write parts of research papers without disclosing this usage. Nobody mentioned using ChatGPT to write code.
- the_af 3y agoDo note TFA is about using ChatGPT to write parts of research papers without disclosure. Nothing to do with using it to write code. Hence my closing line, "[in the context of writing research papers] a valid use of AI would be as a better Google Translate [for non-native English speakers]."
- not2b 3y agoThe papers' authors may be trying to translate their broken English into proper English, and might be asking ChatGPT to regenerate a "translation" that changes the meaning.
- the_af 3y ago"Regenerate response" [1] is what appears at the bottom of every ChatGPT response. It doesn't even mean they clicked on it; it just means they carelessly cut & pasted the response without cleaning it up, which carried over bits of ChatGPT's UI. Whether or not they used ChatGPT just as a translation service (an acceptable use, in my opinion), in many cases they didn't disclose this usage even when the rules of submission mandated it. -- [1] I just checked and now it just says "Regenerate". It must have been "Regenerate response" in the past.