5 ms·

Why is scientific writing being judged by the writing style / etc. vs the power and novelty of the ideas it contains? Manuscripts are prepared with spell check

by czl 3y ago

Why is scientific writing being judged by the writing style / etc. vs the power and novelty of the ideas it contains? Manuscripts are prepared with spell check / grammar check, with “mechanical” fonts, computation and layout. How is AI helping improve scientific publications different from other ways technology has improved them?

throwitaway1123 3y ago
> Why is scientific writing being judged by the writing style / etc. vs the power and novelty of the ideas it contains? It's not solely being judged on the basis of the writing style, and the author alludes to this in the first paragraph: "I have just been accused of scientific fraud. Not data fraud — no one accused me of fabricating or misleadingly manipulating data or results. This, I suppose, is a relief". I think there is an art to communicating complex ideas clearly, and some people value that ability, and don't like having their rhetorical ability discredited. There are certain scientists who I appreciate almost as much for their ability to communicate science to the public as I do for their ability to conduct scientific research. Richard Feynman for example had an uncanny ability to convey scientific concepts.
- viraptor 3y ago
  It feels like the wrong criticism to me for that reason. As far as form goes, who cares about GPT/not-GPT? If there's an issue with the form, point out that issue. If there's an issue with content, point out that issue. There's a separate argument about potentially unknowingly copying someone's exact words. But beyond that, it's a lazy criticism that's common on the internet. You could mentally replace "it's GPT" with "it's lame". Ok - but why does the person think it's lame.
  - throwitaway1123 3y ago
    After reading over your response and the other commenter who replied to me (czl), I think to a certain extent we're talking about different things. You both seem to be saying that using a chatbot to write a manuscript shouldn't automatically disqualify your work from being published, which I don't really have any qualms about. What bothers me is the idea that a talented digital artist could spend days crafting a photorealistic painting only to have someone rob them of the credit they're due by attributing the work to Midjourney. It bothers me that a gifted writer could spend hours painstakingly deliberating over the best way to convey an idea only to have the credit for the prose given to OpenAI. This is basically the sentiment that the author of this article was expressing: "That hurts, because — like many people — I find writing a paper to be a somewhat painful process. I read books on how to write — both to be comforted by how much these books stress that writing is generally slow and difficult, and to find ways to improve. My current strategy involves willing myself to write and creating several outlines before the first draft, which is followed by writing and a lot of revising." People generally don't enjoy working hard on something and having the credit stolen by another entity (regardless of whether or not that entity is a machine). I don't have a problem with people using Github Copilot to write code for example, but if I personally write my code by hand it's infuriating if someone gives the credit to Github's AI.
    - czl 3y ago
      > What bothers me is the idea that a talented digital artist could spend days crafting a photorealistic painting only to have someone rob them of the credit they're due by attributing the work to Midjourney. I try to impress you with my ability to look and create photo like images. It takes me a few days to do each one. Camera takes a few seconds to do the same thing. Should I be offended when you tell me I must have used a camera to make mine? How much "credit" should my skill get? What value is my skill in the age of cameras?
      - throwitaway1123 3y ago
        Wow, at first I thought this was just a misunderstanding, but you're legitimately arguing that there's no value in anything a human being creates that a machine can mimic. I'm not going to argue against misanthropy, but I am curious about the implications of what you're saying. So do you think we should just shut down museums, put the Mona Lisa in a shredder, and just discontinue art as a whole since it all apparently has no value? Also, what happens when AI and robotics can do everything that a human being can? Are we an obsolete species with no value when that time comes? I'm legitimately curious about how you see the world.
        czl 3y ago
        > you're legitimately arguing that there's no value in anything a human being creates that a machine can mimic. You misunderstand me. > So do you think we should just shut down museums, put the Mona Lisa in a shredder, and just discontinue art as a whole since it all apparently has no value? There are different types of value: scientific value, historic value, economic value, sentimental value, costly signaling value. Also wealth portability / wealth hiding / tax evasion value. Art has more than one type of value. > I'm not going to argue against misanthropy, but I am curious about the implications of what you're saying. When you are unwell do you seek medicine? What does medicine say you are? Are you not a biochemical machine? > Also, what happens when AI and robotics can do everything that a human being can? Despite using machines for transport and moving stuff many of us use treadmills and lift weights ditto many still play chess despite machines mastering that game. Why might that be? > Are we an obsolete species with no value when that time comes? Today our minds exist in one form. In the future, might our minds exist in other forms? If you had the power to upgrade various parts of yourself with better parts would you reject this? Are we the end state of evolution?
- czl 3y ago
  Science > I think there is an art to communicating complex ideas clearly, and some people value that ability, Yes. There is also an art to fine penmanship and the ability to craft a professional manuscript by hand with just ink. This used to be valued now we use mechanical fonts and layout engines etc. Times change, technology changes. The utility / novelty of the ideas vs how they are conveyed: which of those matters for a science publication? If both why not also got back to handwriting and ban the use of fonts / layout engines to increase the challenge required to create good manuscripts? Is science a costly signalling status contest, a process that should be as exclusive as possible? Is science a search for truth, a process that should broadly accessible even to those with poor language skills?
  - throwitaway1123 3y ago
    > now we use mechanical fonts and layout engines etc. Times change, technology changes. Absolutely, and I personally don't design my own fonts. But if I were a professional typographer like Matthew Butterick[1] for example, and someone accused me of using Times New Roman when I actually created my own fonts from scratch, I'd probably be a little perturbed. > Is science a search for truth, a process that should broadly accessible even to those with poor language skills? It's absolutely a search for truth, and like I said elsewhere, I'm not opposed to someone using a large language model to help them document their findings. You can continue using ChatGPT to help you write [2]. I have no issue with that. You're arguing against a straw man. I'm saying if someone had poor English language skills for example, and they spent years acquiring English language proficiency, they'd probably be annoyed if you discredited their years of mastering the language by simply saying "you're not fluent in English, you just used ChatGPT to write everything". That doesn't mean someone else who doesn't have the time or resources to master English can't use ChatGPT as a writing aid. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. [1] https://practicaltypography.com/about-matthew-butterick.html https://practicaltypography.com/about-matthew-butterick.html [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38637667 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38637667
    - czl 3y ago
      > if I were a professional typographer like Matthew Butterick[1] for example, and someone accused me of using Times New Roman when I actually created my own fonts from scratch, I'd probably be a little perturbed. A closer analogy with AI for science writing would be to accuse you of getting help from a computer to create the new font and not doing it by hand. When you create fonts goal is the font. When you publish research the writeup is important but goal is useful and new results. Because accuracy and clarity of the writeup matters whatever serves that best should be used. > You can continue using ChatGPT to help you write [2]. > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38637667 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38637667 The example you quoted states the output comes from ChatGPT. It was used to explain some concepts and it did a far better job than I could do for the time it took. > I'm saying if someone had poor English language skills for example, and they spent years acquiring English language proficiency, they'd probably be annoyed if you discredited their years of mastering the language by simply saying "you're not fluent in English, you just used ChatGPT to write everything". Will the situation be the same when AI improves so much that it helps writing much like mechanical fonts regularly help our writing today? Say I took years to develop penmanship skills such that my hand writing looks like mechanical fonts. Should I be annoyed if you say “Your hand writing looks like a mechanical font!”? When it comes to science writing should pride be placed in penmanship skills? Should pride be in English language skills? What matters for science writing? Today AI writing has a mixed reputation. Sometimes the output is fantastic. Sometimes output is fantastic nonsense. To tell someone their manuscript looks like ChatGPT wrote it is likely meant as an insult. In the future do you not expect AIs will be used to judge writing (like Latex style sheets guide journal submissions today)? Will writing not be rejected unless it meets high standards for clarity etc? Perhaps the best way to meet those standards will be to get an AI to help you? How do you suppose the future of science writing will go?
bart_spoon 3y ago
This is the biggest question to me. Who cares even if the reviewer did use ChatGPT to write his findings. The findings themselves are what is important. This is just another example of the abysmal state of affairs that is modern peer-review.

by czl 3y ago

throwitaway1123 3y ago

> Why is scientific writing being judged by the writing style / etc. vs the power and novelty of the ideas it contains? It's not solely being judged on the basis of the writing style, and the author alludes to this in the first paragraph: "I have just been accused of scientific fraud. Not data fraud — no one accused me of fabricating or misleadingly manipulating data or results. This, I suppose, is a relief". I think there is an art to communicating complex ideas clearly, and some people value that ability, and don't like having their rhetorical ability discredited. There are certain scientists who I appreciate almost as much for their ability to communicate science to the public as I do for their ability to conduct scientific research. Richard Feynman for example had an uncanny ability to convey scientific concepts.

viraptor 3y ago
It feels like the wrong criticism to me for that reason. As far as form goes, who cares about GPT/not-GPT? If there's an issue with the form, point out that issue. If there's an issue with content, point out that issue. There's a separate argument about potentially unknowingly copying someone's exact words. But beyond that, it's a lazy criticism that's common on the internet. You could mentally replace "it's GPT" with "it's lame". Ok - but why does the person think it's lame.
- throwitaway1123 3y ago
  After reading over your response and the other commenter who replied to me (czl), I think to a certain extent we're talking about different things. You both seem to be saying that using a chatbot to write a manuscript shouldn't automatically disqualify your work from being published, which I don't really have any qualms about. What bothers me is the idea that a talented digital artist could spend days crafting a photorealistic painting only to have someone rob them of the credit they're due by attributing the work to Midjourney. It bothers me that a gifted writer could spend hours painstakingly deliberating over the best way to convey an idea only to have the credit for the prose given to OpenAI. This is basically the sentiment that the author of this article was expressing: "That hurts, because — like many people — I find writing a paper to be a somewhat painful process. I read books on how to write — both to be comforted by how much these books stress that writing is generally slow and difficult, and to find ways to improve. My current strategy involves willing myself to write and creating several outlines before the first draft, which is followed by writing and a lot of revising." People generally don't enjoy working hard on something and having the credit stolen by another entity (regardless of whether or not that entity is a machine). I don't have a problem with people using Github Copilot to write code for example, but if I personally write my code by hand it's infuriating if someone gives the credit to Github's AI.
  - czl 3y ago
    > What bothers me is the idea that a talented digital artist could spend days crafting a photorealistic painting only to have someone rob them of the credit they're due by attributing the work to Midjourney. I try to impress you with my ability to look and create photo like images. It takes me a few days to do each one. Camera takes a few seconds to do the same thing. Should I be offended when you tell me I must have used a camera to make mine? How much "credit" should my skill get? What value is my skill in the age of cameras?
    - throwitaway1123 3y ago
      Wow, at first I thought this was just a misunderstanding, but you're legitimately arguing that there's no value in anything a human being creates that a machine can mimic. I'm not going to argue against misanthropy, but I am curious about the implications of what you're saying. So do you think we should just shut down museums, put the Mona Lisa in a shredder, and just discontinue art as a whole since it all apparently has no value? Also, what happens when AI and robotics can do everything that a human being can? Are we an obsolete species with no value when that time comes? I'm legitimately curious about how you see the world.
      - czl 3y ago
        > you're legitimately arguing that there's no value in anything a human being creates that a machine can mimic. You misunderstand me. > So do you think we should just shut down museums, put the Mona Lisa in a shredder, and just discontinue art as a whole since it all apparently has no value? There are different types of value: scientific value, historic value, economic value, sentimental value, costly signaling value. Also wealth portability / wealth hiding / tax evasion value. Art has more than one type of value. > I'm not going to argue against misanthropy, but I am curious about the implications of what you're saying. When you are unwell do you seek medicine? What does medicine say you are? Are you not a biochemical machine? > Also, what happens when AI and robotics can do everything that a human being can? Despite using machines for transport and moving stuff many of us use treadmills and lift weights ditto many still play chess despite machines mastering that game. Why might that be? > Are we an obsolete species with no value when that time comes? Today our minds exist in one form. In the future, might our minds exist in other forms? If you had the power to upgrade various parts of yourself with better parts would you reject this? Are we the end state of evolution?
czl 3y ago
Science > I think there is an art to communicating complex ideas clearly, and some people value that ability, Yes. There is also an art to fine penmanship and the ability to craft a professional manuscript by hand with just ink. This used to be valued now we use mechanical fonts and layout engines etc. Times change, technology changes. The utility / novelty of the ideas vs how they are conveyed: which of those matters for a science publication? If both why not also got back to handwriting and ban the use of fonts / layout engines to increase the challenge required to create good manuscripts? Is science a costly signalling status contest, a process that should be as exclusive as possible? Is science a search for truth, a process that should broadly accessible even to those with poor language skills?
- throwitaway1123 3y ago
  > now we use mechanical fonts and layout engines etc. Times change, technology changes. Absolutely, and I personally don't design my own fonts. But if I were a professional typographer like Matthew Butterick[1] for example, and someone accused me of using Times New Roman when I actually created my own fonts from scratch, I'd probably be a little perturbed. > Is science a search for truth, a process that should broadly accessible even to those with poor language skills? It's absolutely a search for truth, and like I said elsewhere, I'm not opposed to someone using a large language model to help them document their findings. You can continue using ChatGPT to help you write [2]. I have no issue with that. You're arguing against a straw man. I'm saying if someone had poor English language skills for example, and they spent years acquiring English language proficiency, they'd probably be annoyed if you discredited their years of mastering the language by simply saying "you're not fluent in English, you just used ChatGPT to write everything". That doesn't mean someone else who doesn't have the time or resources to master English can't use ChatGPT as a writing aid. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. [1] https://practicaltypography.com/about-matthew-butterick.html https://practicaltypography.com/about-matthew-butterick.html [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38637667 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38637667
  - czl 3y ago
    > if I were a professional typographer like Matthew Butterick[1] for example, and someone accused me of using Times New Roman when I actually created my own fonts from scratch, I'd probably be a little perturbed. A closer analogy with AI for science writing would be to accuse you of getting help from a computer to create the new font and not doing it by hand. When you create fonts goal is the font. When you publish research the writeup is important but goal is useful and new results. Because accuracy and clarity of the writeup matters whatever serves that best should be used. > You can continue using ChatGPT to help you write [2]. > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38637667 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38637667 The example you quoted states the output comes from ChatGPT. It was used to explain some concepts and it did a far better job than I could do for the time it took. > I'm saying if someone had poor English language skills for example, and they spent years acquiring English language proficiency, they'd probably be annoyed if you discredited their years of mastering the language by simply saying "you're not fluent in English, you just used ChatGPT to write everything". Will the situation be the same when AI improves so much that it helps writing much like mechanical fonts regularly help our writing today? Say I took years to develop penmanship skills such that my hand writing looks like mechanical fonts. Should I be annoyed if you say “Your hand writing looks like a mechanical font!”? When it comes to science writing should pride be placed in penmanship skills? Should pride be in English language skills? What matters for science writing? Today AI writing has a mixed reputation. Sometimes the output is fantastic. Sometimes output is fantastic nonsense. To tell someone their manuscript looks like ChatGPT wrote it is likely meant as an insult. In the future do you not expect AIs will be used to judge writing (like Latex style sheets guide journal submissions today)? Will writing not be rejected unless it meets high standards for clarity etc? Perhaps the best way to meet those standards will be to get an AI to help you? How do you suppose the future of science writing will go?

bart_spoon 3y ago

This is the biggest question to me. Who cares even if the reviewer did use ChatGPT to write his findings. The findings themselves are what is important. This is just another example of the abysmal state of affairs that is modern peer-review.