6 ms·

This is so disappointing.

josephg 2y ago
Eh. Its a tool, just like a calculator, a computer or a drug. Just like everything else that has potency, you can use it well or poorly. I got some help from ChatGPT while writing a recent paper. At one point while writing, I couldn't find a straightforward way to express myself. I was stuck - and then every attempt at writing the same paragraph came out worse than the last. Eventually I gave my draft to chatgpt and asked it to come up with a few suggestions on how to express my ideas more clearly. That really helped. I adapted some of its writing and ended up with a better final result. I'm not sure if anything chatgpt wrote is in the final paper. But I really appreciated the LLM assistance to help me express myself. I'm sure there's a lot of much more egregious examples where chatgpt wholesale wrote large sections of some papers. But its really not the tool that's at fault. Its how the tool is being used. And we simply don't have social norms around that yet, because figuring out norms takes time. The calculator was the same. When is a calculator acceptable in a classroom? In an exam? Our teachers at the time justified "no calculator" policies by saying "You won't have a calculator in your pocket when you're going through life!". And, well, that turned out to be very wrong.
- viccis 2y ago
  So you plagiarized for your paper? I mean, people seem to be in agreement that studios using visual AI generated art that draws from existing works is plagiarism, so how did you not commit academic fraud? Did you consider that encountering challenges with expressing yourself and overcoming them is the pedagogical purpose for papers like that? I am assuming your paper was for a class, given your comparison to calculators in a classroom. If not, then my point does not apply. >Our teachers at the time justified "no calculator" policies by saying "You won't have a calculator in your pocket when you're going through life!". And, well, that turned out to be very wrong. The only time we weren't allowed to use calculators was for things like arithmetic and fraction manipulation. It would indeed be absurd to have to consult a calculator for every numerical step you have to take in math work for subsequent years, so I think your teachers were right.
  - josephg 2y ago
    > So you plagiarized for your paper? I don't think I did. And no, it wasn't for a class. Please be more considered before throwing out accusations of academic misconduct. That is a very heavy term. Anyway, I don't think what I did is any more "academic misconduct" than using Grammerly is academic misconduct. They're both uses of LLMs, sure. But the uses are different and we need to start differentiating them. If you think AI generated art is plagerism, would you therefore conclude that photoshop's content aware fill is plagerism, since it uses the same AI models? Or Apple's smart selection tool? > The only time we weren't allowed to use calculators was for things like arithmetic and fraction manipulation. [...] so I think your teachers were right. (Emphasis mine) Seems pretty strange to assume my teachers were right given you have no idea what country I went to school in or what their policy was on calculators.
    - firesteelrain 2y ago
      What else is the reason to write a “paper” if not for a class or journal or conference? Do you write papers just because? I don’t care if anyone uses LLMs to help write papers as long as it doesn’t falsify findings.
      - josephg 2y ago
        I’m certainly not falsifying any findings. I just needed some help finding English words to help make the math easier to understand. I’m sorry for this, but if some members of this community are ready and willing to make claims of academic misconduct over the idea of using an llm as a writing assistant, I don’t think I trust this community enough to go into more details in this thread.
        firesteelrain 2y ago
        You are overreacting. No one is getting what you are talking about.
    - viccis 2y ago
      >I don't think I did. And no, it wasn't for a class. Please be more considered before throwing out accusations of academic misconduct. Please throw all of my comment into whatever LLM you used to respond, as I pointed out and explained the academic contextual assumption I made. If you are focusing on my phrase "for a class" here, and this paper was actually for an academic conference or journal, then yes! you have committed academic misconduct. >f you think AI generated art is plagerism, would you therefore conclude that photoshop's content aware fill is plagerism, since it uses the same AI models? Absolutely, if you are talking about some of the new ones that use stable diffusion and other visual generative models. It might be fine if you're doing it in a commercial setting and those models' licenses authorize you to do so, but using that for a situation in which the art is assumed to be yours (an art class project or for a commission in which the contract states you are producing it) would be fraud. >Seems pretty strange to assume my teachers were right given you have no idea what country I went to school in or what their policy was on calculators. Given that you didn't really dispute my point and rather attacked the grounds for it, and that you invented a false premise of your own (that calculator policies are a per-country thing ???), I'm gonna assume your Australian teachers' policy was applicable to my point.
hdhshdhshdjd 2y ago
While it would never be published, I imagine if they broke it down by author surname you’d see most of this is non English speakers using a juiced up grammar check. I see no evidence actual findings are changing. Lots of people have good science to contribute and suck at writing English. Making findings easier to digest isn’t bad per se.

Eh. Its a tool, just like a calculator, a computer or a drug. Just like everything else that has potency, you can use it well or poorly. I got some help from ChatGPT while writing a recent paper. At one point while writing, I couldn't find a straightforward way to express myself. I was stuck - and then every attempt at writing the same paragraph came out worse than the last. Eventually I gave my draft to chatgpt and asked it to come up with a few suggestions on how to express my ideas more clearly. That really helped. I adapted some of its writing and ended up with a better final result. I'm not sure if anything chatgpt wrote is in the final paper. But I really appreciated the LLM assistance to help me express myself. I'm sure there's a lot of much more egregious examples where chatgpt wholesale wrote large sections of some papers. But its really not the tool that's at fault. Its how the tool is being used. And we simply don't have social norms around that yet, because figuring out norms takes time. The calculator was the same. When is a calculator acceptable in a classroom? In an exam? Our teachers at the time justified "no calculator" policies by saying "You won't have a calculator in your pocket when you're going through life!". And, well, that turned out to be very wrong.

viccis 2y ago
So you plagiarized for your paper? I mean, people seem to be in agreement that studios using visual AI generated art that draws from existing works is plagiarism, so how did you not commit academic fraud? Did you consider that encountering challenges with expressing yourself and overcoming them is the pedagogical purpose for papers like that? I am assuming your paper was for a class, given your comparison to calculators in a classroom. If not, then my point does not apply. >Our teachers at the time justified "no calculator" policies by saying "You won't have a calculator in your pocket when you're going through life!". And, well, that turned out to be very wrong. The only time we weren't allowed to use calculators was for things like arithmetic and fraction manipulation. It would indeed be absurd to have to consult a calculator for every numerical step you have to take in math work for subsequent years, so I think your teachers were right.
- josephg 2y ago
  > So you plagiarized for your paper? I don't think I did. And no, it wasn't for a class. Please be more considered before throwing out accusations of academic misconduct. That is a very heavy term. Anyway, I don't think what I did is any more "academic misconduct" than using Grammerly is academic misconduct. They're both uses of LLMs, sure. But the uses are different and we need to start differentiating them. If you think AI generated art is plagerism, would you therefore conclude that photoshop's content aware fill is plagerism, since it uses the same AI models? Or Apple's smart selection tool? > The only time we weren't allowed to use calculators was for things like arithmetic and fraction manipulation. [...] so I think your teachers were right. (Emphasis mine) Seems pretty strange to assume my teachers were right given you have no idea what country I went to school in or what their policy was on calculators.
  - firesteelrain 2y ago
    What else is the reason to write a “paper” if not for a class or journal or conference? Do you write papers just because? I don’t care if anyone uses LLMs to help write papers as long as it doesn’t falsify findings.
    - josephg 2y ago
      I’m certainly not falsifying any findings. I just needed some help finding English words to help make the math easier to understand. I’m sorry for this, but if some members of this community are ready and willing to make claims of academic misconduct over the idea of using an llm as a writing assistant, I don’t think I trust this community enough to go into more details in this thread.
      - firesteelrain 2y ago
        You are overreacting. No one is getting what you are talking about.
  - viccis 2y ago
    >I don't think I did. And no, it wasn't for a class. Please be more considered before throwing out accusations of academic misconduct. Please throw all of my comment into whatever LLM you used to respond, as I pointed out and explained the academic contextual assumption I made. If you are focusing on my phrase "for a class" here, and this paper was actually for an academic conference or journal, then yes! you have committed academic misconduct. >f you think AI generated art is plagerism, would you therefore conclude that photoshop's content aware fill is plagerism, since it uses the same AI models? Absolutely, if you are talking about some of the new ones that use stable diffusion and other visual generative models. It might be fine if you're doing it in a commercial setting and those models' licenses authorize you to do so, but using that for a situation in which the art is assumed to be yours (an art class project or for a commission in which the contract states you are producing it) would be fraud. >Seems pretty strange to assume my teachers were right given you have no idea what country I went to school in or what their policy was on calculators. Given that you didn't really dispute my point and rather attacked the grounds for it, and that you invented a false premise of your own (that calculator policies are a per-country thing ???), I'm gonna assume your Australian teachers' policy was applicable to my point.

hdhshdhshdjd 2y ago

While it would never be published, I imagine if they broke it down by author surname you’d see most of this is non English speakers using a juiced up grammar check. I see no evidence actual findings are changing. Lots of people have good science to contribute and suck at writing English. Making findings easier to digest isn’t bad per se.