| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v9a3qk$2850u$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: ChatGPT contributing to current science papers
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2024 11:29:40 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 50
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <v9a3qk$2850u$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v98m8k$ttm6$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: {$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
logging-data="65548"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:JMeVl3zRssggKWX32MBWfjgXxDo=
Return-Path: <news@eternal-september.org>
X-Original-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org
Delivered-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org
id 622A0229782; Sun, 11 Aug 2024 06:29:05 -0400 (EDT)
by beagle.ediacara.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E9F7229765
for <talk-origins@ediacara.org>; Sun, 11 Aug 2024 06:29:03 -0400 (EDT)
id 03C585DC2C; Sun, 11 Aug 2024 10:29:44 +0000 (UTC)
Delivered-To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
by mod-relay-1.kamens.us (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D749A5DC26
for <talk-origins@moderators.isc.org>; Sun, 11 Aug 2024 10:29:43 +0000 (UTC)
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256))
(No client certificate requested)
by smtp.eternal-september.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C9005F834
for <talk-origins@moderators.isc.org>; Sun, 11 Aug 2024 10:29:41 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: name/3C9005F834; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=meden.demon.co.uk
id B819FDC01A9; Sun, 11 Aug 2024 12:29:40 +0200 (CEST)
X-Injection-Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2024 12:29:40 +0200 (CEST)
X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX180e6/JEJzMgCjqZNQjRGVStH1x80cQ52wNkdy/9NKIb2uuJ57zNv6WR38yUbH7xRurOE8NQe4L1w==
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <v98m8k$ttm6$1@dont-email.me>
FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,SPF_HELO_NONE,
SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
smtp.eternal-september.org
Bytes: 5238
On 10/08/2024 22:32, RonO wrote:
> https://phys.org/news/2024-08-junk-ai-scientific-publishing.html
>
> Several examples of scientists using AI to write papers with AI
> generated mistakes that passed peer review. I noted before that ChatGPT
> could be used to write the introductions of papers, sometimes, better
> than the authors had done. One example of a figure manipulation
> indicates that some authors are using it to present and discuss their
> data. That seems crazy. ChatGPT doesn't evaluate the junk that it is
> given. It just basically summarizes what they feed into it on some
> subject. I used a graphic AI once. I asked it to produce a picture of
> a chicken walking towards the viewer. It did a pretty good job, but
> gave the chicken the wrong number of toes facing forward. Apparently
> junk like that is making it into science publications.
>
> With these examples it may be that one of the last papers that I
> reviewed before retiring earlier this year was due to AI. It was a good
> introduction and cited the relevant papers and summarized what could be
> found in them, but even though the authors had cited previous work doing
> what they claimed to be doing, their experimental design was incorrect
> for what they were trying to do. The papers they cited had done things
> correctly, but they had not. I rejected the paper and informed the
> journal editor that it needed substantial rewrite for the authors to
> state what they had actually done. What might have happened is that the
> researchers may have had an AI write their introduction, but it was for
> what they wanted to do, and not for what they actually did. English was
> likely not the primary language for the authors, and they may not have
> understood the introduction that was written. If they had understood
> the introduction, they would have figured out that they had not done
> what they claimed to be doing. Peer review is going to have to deal
> with this type of junk. The last paper that I reviewed in March came
> with instructions that the reviewers were not to use AI to assist them
> with the review, but it looks like reviewers are going to need software
> that will detect AI generated text.
>
> Ron Okimoto
>
I can understand why journals would not want to authors to use AI in
writing papers*, but why would they not want reviewers to use AI tools
if they can assist in reviewing the paper?
* Even so, the AI rubric includes translation tools (authors might write
text in their native language, and use AI for a first pass translation
into English), and the spelling/grammar/style checker Grammerly now
includes AI features.
--
alias Ernest Major