4 ms·

The article explained why there is a "good demand for the material": > The economics involved are simple. On one end, the demand: the effectively infinite, ind

The article explained why there is a "good demand for the material": > The economics involved are simple. On one end, the demand: the effectively infinite, indiscriminate appetite for content of websites like Facebook and TikTok, which need enticements for users and real estate for advertisers. On the other, the supply: the astonishingly adequate, inexhaustible output of generative-AI apps like ChatGPT, Midjourney, or Microsoft’s Image Creator, heavily subsidized by investors and provided to consumers at low or no cost. As for academic sites being a source of quality training material, it points out 'In June, researchers published a study that concluded that one-tenth of the academic papers they examined “were processed with LLMs,”' and mentions the monetary incentive academics have to use AI-generated papers 'to pad [their] résumé with more publications and citations'.

OutOfHere 2y ago
> mentions the monetary incentive academics have to use AI-generated papers 'to pad [their] résumé with more publications and citations Whether that is true or not, it is reasonable to use an LLM to assist in writing a paper. It doesn't necessarily have to be padding anything. Those from foreign countries may find it especially useful. We should be grateful that they're using English at all.
- eesmith 2y ago
  What a distraction, when the full context was specifically: > AI-generated papers, Cabanac argued, are often used to pad an academic’s résumé with more publications and citations: “You buy a paper on a topic of your choice, and you buy a set of 500 citations. Then you go to your faculty and you say, ‘Look, I’m a genius, and I deserve this position as a full professor.’” In other words, like Facebook slop, the content of the content isn’t really as important as its presence — or, more accurately, its measurability. If you think that buying a LLM-generated paper is the same as grammar assistance then those "academic sites, and other scholarly sites" you praised will not actually provide "quality training material" you expect. Furthermore, my overall point is that the article describes why there is good demand for the material, which you straight-out said it did not do.
  - OutOfHere 2y ago
    I find this hard to believe because putting out a new paper fundamentally requires new data or at least a thorough review. One can't legitimately put out a paper if they don't have at least one of these two things. AI can write survey articles, it can suggest avenues for new research, and it can convert data into a paper, but it cannot create real-world data from scratch, at least not without conducting a real-world experiment. Does this make sense?
    - eesmith 2y ago
      Your incredulity tells me you haven't been following the issue at all. You assume people always want to put out a legitimate paper. Read Retraction Watch for examples of researchers who don't. https://retractionwatch.com/papers-and-peer-reviews-with-evidence-of-chatgpt-writing/ https://retractionwatch.com/papers-and-peer-reviews-with-evi... has a list of papers where a generative AI was almost certainly used, but it use wasn't reported, and some of the papers were clearly not legit. For example, https://pubpeer.com/publications/CAABBF887348FB2D1C0329E0A27BE6 https://pubpeer.com/publications/CAABBF887348FB2D1C0329E0A27... . The first sentence of the introduction starts "Certainly, here is a possible introduction for your topic", and commenters also discovered that the authors reported the same data for multiple papers.

OutOfHere 2y ago

> mentions the monetary incentive academics have to use AI-generated papers 'to pad [their] résumé with more publications and citations Whether that is true or not, it is reasonable to use an LLM to assist in writing a paper. It doesn't necessarily have to be padding anything. Those from foreign countries may find it especially useful. We should be grateful that they're using English at all.

eesmith 2y ago
What a distraction, when the full context was specifically: > AI-generated papers, Cabanac argued, are often used to pad an academic’s résumé with more publications and citations: “You buy a paper on a topic of your choice, and you buy a set of 500 citations. Then you go to your faculty and you say, ‘Look, I’m a genius, and I deserve this position as a full professor.’” In other words, like Facebook slop, the content of the content isn’t really as important as its presence — or, more accurately, its measurability. If you think that buying a LLM-generated paper is the same as grammar assistance then those "academic sites, and other scholarly sites" you praised will not actually provide "quality training material" you expect. Furthermore, my overall point is that the article describes why there is good demand for the material, which you straight-out said it did not do.
- OutOfHere 2y ago
  I find this hard to believe because putting out a new paper fundamentally requires new data or at least a thorough review. One can't legitimately put out a paper if they don't have at least one of these two things. AI can write survey articles, it can suggest avenues for new research, and it can convert data into a paper, but it cannot create real-world data from scratch, at least not without conducting a real-world experiment. Does this make sense?
  - eesmith 2y ago
    Your incredulity tells me you haven't been following the issue at all. You assume people always want to put out a legitimate paper. Read Retraction Watch for examples of researchers who don't. https://retractionwatch.com/papers-and-peer-reviews-with-evidence-of-chatgpt-writing/ https://retractionwatch.com/papers-and-peer-reviews-with-evi... has a list of papers where a generative AI was almost certainly used, but it use wasn't reported, and some of the papers were clearly not legit. For example, https://pubpeer.com/publications/CAABBF887348FB2D1C0329E0A27BE6 https://pubpeer.com/publications/CAABBF887348FB2D1C0329E0A27... . The first sentence of the introduction starts "Certainly, here is a possible introduction for your topic", and commenters also discovered that the authors reported the same data for multiple papers.