3 ms·

> Please throw all of my comment into whatever LLM you used to respond, Rude. Rude and wrong. > If [...] this paper was actually for an academic conference or

> Please throw all of my comment into whatever LLM you used to respond, Rude. Rude and wrong. > If [...] this paper was actually for an academic conference or journal, then yes! you have committed academic misconduct. This is a surprising perspective given that in many ways I had the same conversation with chatgpt about my work that I might have had with a colleague or a spouse. The biggest difference is that chatgpt's suggested improvements weren't very good, and none of its suggestions ended up in the final text. Is it the product of plagerism? I absolutely believe that ChatGPT is being overused in academia, just like stackoverflow is in professional programming. But I don't think we have any consensus as to where the line should be between "acceptable use" and plagerism. To me, banning the tool outright would be as silly as banning google search, banning calculators outright in schools or banning artists from using photoshop. (And yes, people made the same argument about photoshop when it was invented - that art made with it wasn't really art because the computer did all the heavy lifting.) > 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 ???) Of course. The grounds for your argument is where it unraveled. You claimed that my teachers had the right calculator policy, but you didn't (and still don't) have enough information to make that claim because you don't know the policy my teachers had. I would have told you if you asked, but you didn't. You simply went on the attack assuming you had all the facts. And now in this followup message, you have doubled down on your mistake. For reference, of course the calculator policy at my Australian school in the 90s was different from yours. We generally weren't allowed calculators on the school grounds at all. That started to change right at the end of high school, when they started allowing calculators in class and non-graphing calculators in examinations. (They checked as we walked in the door). But for most of my grade school experience, calculators were banned.

viccis 2y ago
>This is a surprising perspective given that in many ways I had the same conversation with chatgpt about my work that I might have had with a colleague or a spouse. Yes, it's possible to scoop academic colleagues and steal ideas from spouses. Plagiarism applies there too. >But I don't think we have any consensus as to where the line should be between "acceptable use" and plagerism. Perhaps, but using it to generate ideas you claim are yours, let alone quoting it directly, are all well past that line. Unless you put ChatGPT in the author list of the paper, in which case, sure, fair play. >For reference, of course the calculator policy at my Australian school in the 90s was different from yours. We generally weren't allowed calculators on the school grounds at all. That started to change right at the end of high school, when they started allowing calculators in class and non-graphing calculators in examinations. (They checked as we walked in the door). But for most of my grade school experience, calculators were banned. Unsurprisingly, this doesn't change or contradict my point at all. Any math you're doing in high school should not require a calculator, or at the very least can be taught without any calculators used. >Rude. Rude and wrong. I'm speaking with a tone appropriate for the nature of my company here (an academic fraud and one or two people who support him)
- josephg 2y ago
  > Yes, it's possible to scoop academic colleagues and steal ideas from spouses. Plagiarism applies there too. I like the idea that lots of novel scientific ideas were really invented by someone's spouse who doesn't work in the field. One day they happened to look over their partner's shoulder on a whim and said "Oh, honey, surely you mean this?" - and thus the hard scientific problem of the day was solved! Maybe that's how software gets written, too? Perhaps we should add people's spouses to the contributor lists for software? I'm sure many engineers talk to their husbands and wives about their work over dinner. It is simply unacceptable how few spouses end up in the contributors list! I suspect what's really going on here is that we have different ideas of what constitutes "plagiarism". What is your working definition of that term? How much support would my spouse have to give me before I'm ethically required to add them as a coauthor? Would talking about the topic over dinner be enough? What if they read over my work and pointed out a spelling or grammar mistake? Should AI based code assistants be banned outright (since they are trained on opensource code)? Should code assistants be listed as contributors? For context, I've worked at multiple universities in multiple countries. And I've spent several years teaching. That has involved telling my students where my line for plagerism is. And getting students in trouble when they cross that line. It sounds like by your reckoning I've been doing it all wrong all this time. So please, enlighten us all. What is plagiarism? How much LLM assistance, exactly, is too much in an academic context? And, if you'll indulge my curiosity, how much experience do you have in universities? (Sadly, I must also acknowledge that I talked to my partner about this comment before posting it. So many obviously stolen ideas - I'm a fraud down to my very bones.)

viccis 2y ago

>This is a surprising perspective given that in many ways I had the same conversation with chatgpt about my work that I might have had with a colleague or a spouse. Yes, it's possible to scoop academic colleagues and steal ideas from spouses. Plagiarism applies there too. >But I don't think we have any consensus as to where the line should be between "acceptable use" and plagerism. Perhaps, but using it to generate ideas you claim are yours, let alone quoting it directly, are all well past that line. Unless you put ChatGPT in the author list of the paper, in which case, sure, fair play. >For reference, of course the calculator policy at my Australian school in the 90s was different from yours. We generally weren't allowed calculators on the school grounds at all. That started to change right at the end of high school, when they started allowing calculators in class and non-graphing calculators in examinations. (They checked as we walked in the door). But for most of my grade school experience, calculators were banned. Unsurprisingly, this doesn't change or contradict my point at all. Any math you're doing in high school should not require a calculator, or at the very least can be taught without any calculators used. >Rude. Rude and wrong. I'm speaking with a tone appropriate for the nature of my company here (an academic fraud and one or two people who support him)

josephg 2y ago
> Yes, it's possible to scoop academic colleagues and steal ideas from spouses. Plagiarism applies there too. I like the idea that lots of novel scientific ideas were really invented by someone's spouse who doesn't work in the field. One day they happened to look over their partner's shoulder on a whim and said "Oh, honey, surely you mean this?" - and thus the hard scientific problem of the day was solved! Maybe that's how software gets written, too? Perhaps we should add people's spouses to the contributor lists for software? I'm sure many engineers talk to their husbands and wives about their work over dinner. It is simply unacceptable how few spouses end up in the contributors list! I suspect what's really going on here is that we have different ideas of what constitutes "plagiarism". What is your working definition of that term? How much support would my spouse have to give me before I'm ethically required to add them as a coauthor? Would talking about the topic over dinner be enough? What if they read over my work and pointed out a spelling or grammar mistake? Should AI based code assistants be banned outright (since they are trained on opensource code)? Should code assistants be listed as contributors? For context, I've worked at multiple universities in multiple countries. And I've spent several years teaching. That has involved telling my students where my line for plagerism is. And getting students in trouble when they cross that line. It sounds like by your reckoning I've been doing it all wrong all this time. So please, enlighten us all. What is plagiarism? How much LLM assistance, exactly, is too much in an academic context? And, if you'll indulge my curiosity, how much experience do you have in universities? (Sadly, I must also acknowledge that I talked to my partner about this comment before posting it. So many obviously stolen ideas - I'm a fraud down to my very bones.)