5 ms·
>“It will make it very easy for any researcher or group of researchers to create fake measurements on non-existent patients, fake answers to questionnaires or t
by sigmar 3y ago
>“It will make it very easy for any researcher or group of researchers to create fake measurements on non-existent patients, fake answers to questionnaires or to generate a large data set on animal experiments.”
Perhaps I'm naive, but I think the people that want to fake data were already doing it without tools like chatgpt. Especially since a ton of biological data is normally distributed, so it's exceedingly easy to generate plausible fake results for such data without a system as advanced as chatgpt
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- abnry 3y agoExactly. How is this news? What would be surprising is if ChatGPT _could_ generate fake data that passed analysis.
- miohtama 3y ago[dead]
- marcuskaufmann 3y agoThis could be the key to gain ultimate understanding
- civilitty 3y agoAGI Silicon Valley style: Fake it till you make it, just like everything else.
- TeMPOraL 3y agoI mean, that's how adversarial networks work, isn't it?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- zitterbewegung 3y agoAdd bitcoin and a DAO and it becomes completely autonomous. Or lawyers…
- spacecadet 3y agoThis.
- chrisweekly 3y agoI think you meant _couldn't_
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- aaron695 3y ago[flagged]
- harry8 3y ago>You have already gotten the basics of faking data incorrect. Let's get past the unnecessary antagonism. Can you please explain the above? Or actually, forget it. You history suggests you don't respond and something like 99/100 of your comments are dead. Maybe this isn't the place for you?
- aaron695 3y ago[dead]
- thwarted 3y agoSo it's idiot human vs idiot GPT at this point. No one believed those who said "make it idiot proof and they'll just make a better idiot", but we should have heeded this warning. They did it! They finally did it! They made a better idiot!
- peteradio 3y agoThe easiest data to fake is null results because anything else is replicable, hence the importance of replication.
- _3u10 3y agonull results are also replicable.
- samtho 3y agoA null result, or the absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence. If you fake a null result, you’re not asserting anything other than you could not measure and collect supporting data using your experiment to prove or disprove a hypothesis. It is difficult for someone doing replication to accuse you of ill-intent, as opposed to faked data that proves your point when anyone else can replicate your experiment and get totally different or even contradictory results.
- jampekka 3y agoYou still have to give out the statistics that show the null result. E.g. something with a high p-value. You are in fact "confirming the null hypothesis". They aren't any more difficult to replicate than results supporting "the alternative hypothesis". (The whole binary hypothesis system and culture is a mess though, but that's besides the point.)
- true_religion 3y agoThis is true. However, I think that no one will do the scut work necessary to find that a null result was faked, and even if they do since you the researcher got very little status out of it then it’s believable that you made a mistake, and didn’t falsify data.
- jampekka 3y agoProbably not, especially as null results are almost impossible to publish (which is mad).
- dclowd9901 3y agoSo we’re pretending making something an order of magnitude easier makes no difference? Ok.
- passwordoops 3y agoIt's not an order of magnitude easier. It won't make a difference
- devmor 3y agoAre we pretending Faker hasn't been a staple library in software testing for years?
- ethanbond 3y agoAre we pretending GPT isn’t a leagues better data-faker than Faker?
- swatcoder 3y agoAs always, it depends on your requirements. GPT definitely wins out if you want more novelty/variety in your fake data and are willing to accept extraordinarily higher cost, less rigor, and less reliability. I'm sure there's some occasion when those criteria win out, but Faker's pretty decent most of the time.
- ethanbond 3y agoThankfully using GPT doesn’t preclude you from using Faker, so I think we can all agree this is strictly an improvement in one’s ability to fake data.
- lacrimacida 3y agoChatGPT will unlock new levels of both good and bad. The question is what the ratio between the two is going to be.
- 3y ago
- shishy 3y agoBeing able to do it at scale is an issue because of paper mills.
- ipsum2 3y ago`np.random.normal(0, 1)`. You too can generate infinite amount of normal distribution data to use for fake datasets, free of AI.
- joaogui1 3y agoPeople are probably thinking data more complex than normal distributions (though I'm also not sure if GPT-4 is the best method for that)
- cosmojg 3y agoThe issue is that we consider passing peer review to be enough for something to be taken as truth when it should really be reproducibility/replicability. That, and the incentives currently driving academia are absolutely ridiculous. Paper mills are merely a symptom of academia's ills, not the cause of them.
- jampekka 3y agoCases of fabrication have been caught because the fabrication is done so badly, i.e. inplausibly. It's often just imputing some "random" numbers or repeating samples etc. Many would be amazed how technically and mathematically illiterate scientists often are. And probably ones that fabricate even more so. Maybe it will increase and/or get a bit higher quality with LLM fakery. But as with many "AI bad" themes, the problem isn't that "AI" can fabricate the data. The problem is fucked up institutions and cultures.