43 ms·
In the end, it will increase standardization and conformity, while at the same time helping non-English speakers to write things. Whether that is net good or b
by RandomLensman 3y ago
In the end, it will increase standardization and conformity, while at the same time helping non-English speakers to write things.
Whether that is net good or bad is difficult to say: broader perimeter of publishing vs narrower way to portray findings.
- phist_mcgee 3y agoNot sure about you, but I sometimes simply stop reading an article if the tone or language is 1 SD away from "Standard English". It can be hard enough understanding the content of a paper without having to interpret and parse the language they're using.
- RandomLensman 3y agoExactly, it sort of increases the effort and decreases likelihood of reading, so support for authors there is a good thing. At the same time, the LLM tools will do more than just enhance the language in a narrow way but rather also "streamline" it, which reduces what can be expressed. That probably will lead to a drop in the maximum complexity that can be expressed. We already see that in other areas where language is already down to really simple stuff with all complexity being removed (whether it is there or not.
- falcor84 3y ago>That probably will lead to a drop in the maximum complexity that can be expressed. I'm not following your argument here. Are you saying that rather than getting help from an LLM, future researchers will be forced to use the LLM's output as-is?
- RandomLensman 3y agoNo. However, there will be expectations forming around the language in papers based on how LLMs use language: People using LLMs to enhance readability will have an impact as the language would gravitate towards something like "maximum likelihood" text (incl text length). It will be very easy to read but also limits what can be expressed within such a "corset".
- falcor84 3y agoIf editors make such a decision, how would that be any different than a publication deciding to set a readability bar based on something like Flesch–Kincaid?
- DoingIsLearning 3y agoYou can request an LLM to write in a particular style. You can request a paragraph to be written in an Allan Poe style (complex prose) or in the style of US Navy Technical Manuals (simple to the point language). What we associate with chatGPT style prose is just the model's 'default voice' but can arguably be curbed.
- phist_mcgee 3y agoI'd never actually thought to get chatgpt to rewrite papers for me, there's some very badly written ones (fully aware that English may not be easy for many people to write in) papers that I have been setting aside for ages.
- RandomLensman 3y agoWhile true, scientific papers are written with an aim to be reasonably easy to parse. Turning scientific papers into literary works is likely to fail (novelty bits aside), same as it fails in business settings etc. We already have pretty streamlined language because people demand it in a lot of places - LLMs will accelerate that because it reduces the effort to get there.
- DoingIsLearning 3y agoI think you misinterpreted. My point is that the output style of LLMs like chatGPT is not static. The 'default voice' uses fairly embellished language but there is nothing stopping a user from requesting a plain language output, such as what you would find in a US Navy manual (whose target audience is a huge cohort) .
- RandomLensman 3y agoI know, but my point is that people will converge on a certain compact and simple style for scientific papers because that will be favored for fast and easy reading (as seen in business, for example). Such a style isn't necessarily easy to write but the LLMs will help people to get there.