4 ms·

> 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

by 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!”

throwitaway1123 3y ago
> 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. This feels like a bit of a non-sequitur to me because I don't see how it has any bearing on the issues we're discussing. But since we're on the topic, your account is 8 years old and you've got less than a quarter of my karma. Maybe lay off of the ChatGPT responses ;) > What sort of “credit” are you hoping for? Just because I believe authors have the right to insist on being credited doesn't mean I believe they are required to invoke that right immediately (or ever). > 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've found that ChatGPT is more likely to be the source of the thinking blunders, rather than the solution. The clearer your thinking is on its own, the less utility you'll get out of using ChatGPT as a crutch. > You think her work should be judged not just on the manuscript but also whether machines helped her write it. You're misrepresenting my argument. I think her work should be judged based on its quality, but if she chooses to claim the credit for her writing she should be entitled to do so. There's no way to argue against people being able to say "I wrote this, not ChatGPT", so you have to invent straw men to argue against instead. You're arguing with phantoms of your imagination. > 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. I think there's a reason why we had to invent literal artificial intelligence in order to produce even a facsimile of human writing whereas spell check and digital fonts have existed for decades — it's because writing well is difficult! Writing isn't the only component that matters when communicating. Obviously the underlying ideas are important, but to dismiss it altogether is naive. The importance of writing exists on a spectrum. On one end of the spectrum is poetry, where the prose itself is more important than the ideas, and on the other end would be something like a csv file or spreadsheet where there's almost no writing at all. Scientific papers fall somewhere along that spectrum, and the only way to determine where a given paper falls would be to develop a weighting function, which is not something I'm interested in. If writing is supposedly so trivial that it's comparable to a font or a spell checker, why did it take decades of sustained work by an army of AI researchers to get to a point where even you still don't fully trust it to completely represent your ideas, and have to add disclaimers every time you use it? I might end this conversation here because I've written so much that HN made me break some of my comments into separate replies, and I've got work to do. Thank you for this discussion!

by czl 3y ago

throwitaway1123 3y ago

> 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. This feels like a bit of a non-sequitur to me because I don't see how it has any bearing on the issues we're discussing. But since we're on the topic, your account is 8 years old and you've got less than a quarter of my karma. Maybe lay off of the ChatGPT responses ;) > What sort of “credit” are you hoping for? Just because I believe authors have the right to insist on being credited doesn't mean I believe they are required to invoke that right immediately (or ever). > 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've found that ChatGPT is more likely to be the source of the thinking blunders, rather than the solution. The clearer your thinking is on its own, the less utility you'll get out of using ChatGPT as a crutch. > You think her work should be judged not just on the manuscript but also whether machines helped her write it. You're misrepresenting my argument. I think her work should be judged based on its quality, but if she chooses to claim the credit for her writing she should be entitled to do so. There's no way to argue against people being able to say "I wrote this, not ChatGPT", so you have to invent straw men to argue against instead. You're arguing with phantoms of your imagination. > 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. I think there's a reason why we had to invent literal artificial intelligence in order to produce even a facsimile of human writing whereas spell check and digital fonts have existed for decades — it's because writing well is difficult! Writing isn't the only component that matters when communicating. Obviously the underlying ideas are important, but to dismiss it altogether is naive. The importance of writing exists on a spectrum. On one end of the spectrum is poetry, where the prose itself is more important than the ideas, and on the other end would be something like a csv file or spreadsheet where there's almost no writing at all. Scientific papers fall somewhere along that spectrum, and the only way to determine where a given paper falls would be to develop a weighting function, which is not something I'm interested in. If writing is supposedly so trivial that it's comparable to a font or a spell checker, why did it take decades of sustained work by an army of AI researchers to get to a point where even you still don't fully trust it to completely represent your ideas, and have to add disclaimers every time you use it? I might end this conversation here because I've written so much that HN made me break some of my comments into separate replies, and I've got work to do. Thank you for this discussion!