3 ms·

This comment reads like you have a bot of an axe to grind. > the ChatGPT acknowledgement She acknowledged to have used it for literature research, not for wri

This comment reads like you have a bot of an axe to grind. > the ChatGPT acknowledgement She acknowledged to have used it for literature research, not for writing the paper (she explicitly emphasizes she wrote it herself), which you didn't make clear. Many researchers today probably use it similarly for literature research (rather than just Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, etc), and there is nothing wrong with that. > I suppose not surprising coming from someone who built their career on YouTube. Phrasing it like that seems misleading. She has a PhD and has worked in academia as a theoretical physicist for most of her career, she has published papers, and she has had a popular physics blog (with people like Peter Shor commenting) for much longer than her YouTube channel.

Aurornis 1y ago
> This comment reads like you have a bot of an axe to grind. I actually opened the paper and started reading and I’m commenting on that. It’s frustrating that anything less than glowing positivity about YouTube influencers draws accusations of having an “axe to grind”. I don’t have any relationship to this person. > She acknowledged to have used it for literature research, Right, that’s the problem I was pointing out. Using ChatGPT for physics research (even if it’s just summarizing papers, though it’s not clear what she meant) is well known to be fraught with hallucinations. > she has published papers, and she has had a popular physics blog (with people like Peter Shor commenting) for much longer than her YouTube channel. This is fairly misleading as it’s not hard to see her YouTube channel has found a far larger audience than her physics blog or her academic posts at institutes like the the Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy. In the very beginning of the paper she says she’s seeking a new affiliation.
_DeadFred_ 1y ago
Bro she's an entertainer on an infomercial platform. Pretty fair to call that out. Like if someone said back in the day they get their science from infomercials whatever they had to say would be instantly discredited. But somehow once infomercials moved to Youtube they are now high level thought.

Aurornis 1y ago

> This comment reads like you have a bot of an axe to grind. I actually opened the paper and started reading and I’m commenting on that. It’s frustrating that anything less than glowing positivity about YouTube influencers draws accusations of having an “axe to grind”. I don’t have any relationship to this person. > She acknowledged to have used it for literature research, Right, that’s the problem I was pointing out. Using ChatGPT for physics research (even if it’s just summarizing papers, though it’s not clear what she meant) is well known to be fraught with hallucinations. > she has published papers, and she has had a popular physics blog (with people like Peter Shor commenting) for much longer than her YouTube channel. This is fairly misleading as it’s not hard to see her YouTube channel has found a far larger audience than her physics blog or her academic posts at institutes like the the Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy. In the very beginning of the paper she says she’s seeking a new affiliation.

_DeadFred_ 1y ago

Bro she's an entertainer on an infomercial platform. Pretty fair to call that out. Like if someone said back in the day they get their science from infomercials whatever they had to say would be instantly discredited. But somehow once infomercials moved to Youtube they are now high level thought.