Article <v9ase2$2q8ct$1@dont-email.me>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<v9ase2$2q8ct$1@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!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: RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: ChatGPT contributing to current science papers
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2024 12:29:38 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 86
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <v9ase2$2q8ct$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v98m8k$ttm6$1@dont-email.me> <v9a3qk$2850u$1@dont-email.me>
 <a13112f3f36032f16b558231b10f25cc@www.novabbs.com>
Reply-To: rokimoto557@gmail.com
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="75585"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ryw+jvO3/kCIdaYbu9BBjYL4vFI=
In-Reply-To: <a13112f3f36032f16b558231b10f25cc@www.novabbs.com>
Content-Language: en-US
	FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,
	FREEMAIL_FROM,FREEMAIL_REPLYTO_END_DIGIT,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,
	NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED,
	RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
	smtp.eternal-september.org
Bytes: 7196

On 8/11/2024 11:25 AM, Burkhard wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 10:29:40 +0000, Ernest Major wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> If any of you are in Edinburgh right now, I'm on a panel on
> this topic at the International Bookfestival, presenting the outcome
> of  two research projects we had on this, and some workshops
> with publishers.
> 
> https://www.edbookfest.co.uk/the-festival/whats-on/page-against-the-machine
> 
> I'm on the more relaxed side on this myself, and agree in particular
> with
> Ernest that nobody worries about some routine tasks like spell-checking
> (translation raises some really interesting issues "at the margins" -
> Google
> e.g got some pushback when publishing in its latest list of languages
> also
> Romani, without checking with the community, and many are unhappy as
> they
> considered the "quasi-secret" nature of the language a historical
> survival tool)
> Very interesting questions also on the copyright for translations etc
> 
> For the use by academics, it often depends on the details. GenAI is a
> glorified autocomplete tool, keep that in mind and you'll be fine. So
> helping
> write the review, once you decide on the content, is much less of
> an issue than outsourcing the actual analysis eg.
> 
> And be aware of hallucinations... as some lawyers found to
> their detriment when they submitted files to the court that had made-
> up precedents in them
> 

One recent paper that I recall reading indicated that AI halucinations 
resulted from feeding the AI, AI generated summaries.  The AI started 
making things up when it had to deal with AI generated material.

Ron Okimoto