3 ms·

> My goal in this discussion is to make the case that AI assistance for science research writing is much like the use of mechanical fonts and layout engines for

> My goal in this discussion is to make the case that AI assistance for science research writing is much like the use of mechanical fonts and layout engines for that purpose. AI chatbots are tools, fonts are tools, and layout engines are tools. Tools assist people. If your goal was to define those terms, then consider your goal achieved. This is why I sometimes despise philosophical discussions because they often accomplish very little besides defining terms. > We used to take pride in the letter shapes our hands create and we still teach children hand writing however in practice handwriting no longer matters. What I'm more interested in is to what extent different tools assist people, and how can we assign credit for work in a world where technology can mimic human work. For example, when I wrote this comment entirely on my own, but used someone else's font and HN's CSS to layout my response, I did a moderate amount of work and deserve a moderate amount of credit. If I had instead simply copy and pasted your comment into ChatGPT and said "ChatGPT please write a response to this comment", then I would have done less work and deserved less credit. I'm not really sure what substantive discussion can be derived from such rudimentary assertions. It feels like we're discussing how blue the sky is. > You agree with this view I never said I agreed with this view. > yet you think there is inherent value in writing without AI assistance whereas I feel our energy is better spent on the ideas being communicated. My time / energy is finite and when I allocate it to X I can not allocate it to Y. I think if you're not able to communicate at the level you would like to, then it makes sense to outsource the work to a machine. Similarly to how if you had trouble seeing you might outsource the work to a screen reader, but if you don't have trouble seeing you might find more value in using your eyes to visually view a computer's display. I personally find that introducing an intermediary (an AI chatbot) between myself and the person I'm communicating with reduces the accuracy of my communication, and I'd rather just speak to my audience directly. That may not be the case for you and that's fine. > our time is best spent on aspects that do add value. I think human writing can add value, and perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree. I frequently find quotes that perfectly encapsulate an idea in a way that I find worthy of credit, and when the author of that quote is a human, I think it's worthwhile to award that person the credit for it. I found a great quote on HN today ironically by the CEO of OpenAI: "But I always want it to be a project that, if successful, will make the rest of my career look like a footnote". Everyone in the comments quickly attributed the quote to Sam Altman so that he could receive the credit for his writing [1]. Now of course in a scientific paper the importance is distributed between the communication and the data itself, so like I said before, are you simply looking for me to assign a weighting function to the writing vs the data? Are we really discussing a hypothetical importance weighting function? Also, can I ask you a question (you ignored my last one about why you chose to credit ChatGPT for your writing by the way)? Are you writing these comments yourself or using a chatbot, and if you aren't using a chatbot why haven't you allocated your valuable time/energy elsewhere, since you apparently don't consider communicating by hand to be a valuable usage of time? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39341637#:~:text=my%20favorite%20life%20motto%20that%20i%20stole%20from%20who%20knows%20where%3A%20do%20things%20that%2C%20if%20they%20succeed%2C%20make%20the%20rest%20of%20your%20life%2Fcareer%20look%20like%20a%20footnote https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39341637#:~:text=my%20f....

czl 3y ago
> If I had instead simply copy and pasted your comment into ChatGPT and said "ChatGPT please write a response to this comment", then I would have done less work and deserved less credit. Some are paid to post to move public opinion, advertize, etc but your messages do not appear that way. Also you are using an 80 day old “throwitaway1123” account. Do you create accounts and then sell them? What sort of “credit” are you hoping for? > I personally find that introducing an intermediary (an AI chatbot) between myself and the person I'm communicating with reduces the accuracy of my communication, and I'd rather just speak to my audience directly. That may not be the case for you and that's fine. I also prefer to speak directly but that style can be misunderstood / come across rude so I use GPT4 to save time explaining my thoughts and also to critique my thoughts. This is out of respect to my audience so I do not waste their time with trivial thinking blunders that a machine can catch. I think this practice will be expected in the future much like spell and grammar check are expected today. > Now of course in a scientific paper the importance is distributed between the communication and the data itself, so like I said before, are you simply looking for me to assign a weighting function to the writing vs the data? What makes a science paper is the novelty and utility of the research it is about. To communicate that research is as important as the legibility of the fonts being used and now machines can help us with both. > Are we really discussing a hypothetical importance weighting function? We are discussing how to think about a researcher who was accused of using AI to help with her research writing. I think her work should be judged based on just the manuscript. You think her work should be judged not just on the manuscript but also whether machines helped her write it. In response to that I say: the labor theory of value is intuitive till you realize its consequences. > Also, can I ask you a question (you ignored my last one about why you chose to credit ChatGPT for your writing by the way)? If a passage is directly pasted from ChatGPT and is based on “its thinking” I want you to know it so you are not confused where it comes from since it may not be 100% my view so it gets treated like an information source. If instead I ask chatGPT to improve my wording then it is like using spell check grammar check. Do you credit your mechanical spell check and grammar check for checking your writing? Don’t you assume these tools are being used and there is no “credit” involved? If the writing is important I may be annoyed if spell check and grammar check were not used. > Are you writing these comments yourself or using a chatbot and if you aren't using a chatbot why haven't you allocated your valuable time/energy elsewhere, since you apparently don't consider communicating by hand to be a valuable usage of time. The comments I shared are my thoughts. When GPT4 is used as a source I sanity check what it says and indicate it was used as a source. As in a science paper the thinking and the information shared is the valuable aspect. The superficial surface style of words and style of the passages is about as important as the style of the fonts. I am happy to let a machine handle it if it can. Ditto if language translation was required. We are not writing poetry. What matters is you understand me and I understand you. To finish I will quote myself from a previous comment: “Our chat is like a dialogue I have with myself (or with chatGPT) when I debate views to make up my mind about them: A joint search for truth. When a smart person (as you obviously are) changes my views on an important topic I am obviously better for it. And even if you do not change my mind, the thinking exercise is valuable. Thank you!”

czl 3y ago

> If I had instead simply copy and pasted your comment into ChatGPT and said "ChatGPT please write a response to this comment", then I would have done less work and deserved less credit. Some are paid to post to move public opinion, advertize, etc but your messages do not appear that way. Also you are using an 80 day old “throwitaway1123” account. Do you create accounts and then sell them? What sort of “credit” are you hoping for? > I personally find that introducing an intermediary (an AI chatbot) between myself and the person I'm communicating with reduces the accuracy of my communication, and I'd rather just speak to my audience directly. That may not be the case for you and that's fine. I also prefer to speak directly but that style can be misunderstood / come across rude so I use GPT4 to save time explaining my thoughts and also to critique my thoughts. This is out of respect to my audience so I do not waste their time with trivial thinking blunders that a machine can catch. I think this practice will be expected in the future much like spell and grammar check are expected today. > Now of course in a scientific paper the importance is distributed between the communication and the data itself, so like I said before, are you simply looking for me to assign a weighting function to the writing vs the data? What makes a science paper is the novelty and utility of the research it is about. To communicate that research is as important as the legibility of the fonts being used and now machines can help us with both. > Are we really discussing a hypothetical importance weighting function? We are discussing how to think about a researcher who was accused of using AI to help with her research writing. I think her work should be judged based on just the manuscript. You think her work should be judged not just on the manuscript but also whether machines helped her write it. In response to that I say: the labor theory of value is intuitive till you realize its consequences. > Also, can I ask you a question (you ignored my last one about why you chose to credit ChatGPT for your writing by the way)? If a passage is directly pasted from ChatGPT and is based on “its thinking” I want you to know it so you are not confused where it comes from since it may not be 100% my view so it gets treated like an information source. If instead I ask chatGPT to improve my wording then it is like using spell check grammar check. Do you credit your mechanical spell check and grammar check for checking your writing? Don’t you assume these tools are being used and there is no “credit” involved? If the writing is important I may be annoyed if spell check and grammar check were not used. > Are you writing these comments yourself or using a chatbot and if you aren't using a chatbot why haven't you allocated your valuable time/energy elsewhere, since you apparently don't consider communicating by hand to be a valuable usage of time. The comments I shared are my thoughts. When GPT4 is used as a source I sanity check what it says and indicate it was used as a source. As in a science paper the thinking and the information shared is the valuable aspect. The superficial surface style of words and style of the passages is about as important as the style of the fonts. I am happy to let a machine handle it if it can. Ditto if language translation was required. We are not writing poetry. What matters is you understand me and I understand you. To finish I will quote myself from a previous comment: “Our chat is like a dialogue I have with myself (or with chatGPT) when I debate views to make up my mind about them: A joint search for truth. When a smart person (as you obviously are) changes my views on an important topic I am obviously better for it. And even if you do not change my mind, the thinking exercise is valuable. Thank you!”