▲ 1053 ▼ Name & shame. :) (mander.xyz) submitted 2 years ago* by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz 92 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 193 points 2 years ago (18 children) Dude. Couldn't even proofread the easy way out they took permalink fedilink source hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 107 points 2 years ago (12 children) This almost makes me think they're trying to fully automate their publishing process. So, no editor in that case. Editors are expensive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 19 points 2 years ago (11 children) If they really want to do it, they can just run a local language model trained to proofread stuff like this. Would be way better permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 12 points 2 years ago (10 children) This is exactly the line of thinking that lead to papers like this being generated. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 1 point 2 years ago (9 children) I don't think so. They are using AI from a 3rd party. If they train their own specialized version, things will be better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 11 points 2 years ago (7 children) Here is a better idea: have some academic integrity and actually do the work instead of using incompetent machine learning to flood the industry with inaccurate trash papers whose only real impact is getting in the way of real research. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 3 points 2 years ago (6 children) There is nothing wrong with using AI to proofread a paper. It's just a grammar checker but better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 4 points 2 years ago (3 children) You can literally use tools to check grammar perfectly without using AI. What the LLM AI does is it predict what word comes next in a sequence, and if the AI is wrong as it often is then you've just attempted to publish a paper with halucinations wasting the time and effort of so many people because you're greedy and lazy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) AI does better at checking for grammar and clarity of message. It's just a fact. I've made comparisons myself using a grammar checker on an essay vs AI and AI corrected it and made it much better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) AI doesn't do anything better than a human being. Human Beings are the training data, an AI that mimics it 98% is still less accurate than the humans. If you suck so much at writing papers then you're just below average as a human being who writes papers and using tools will never remedy that without introspection and a desire to improve. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 2 points 2 years ago You said that "you can literally use tools to check grammar perfectly" I've responded to that claim. No mention of humans. You seem to be projecting permalink fedilink source parent [–] BearGun@ttrpg.network 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Proofreading involves more than just checking grammar, and AIs aren't perfect. I would never put my name on something to get published publicly like this without reading it through at least once myself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 4 points 2 years ago I entirely agree. You should read through something you'll publish. permalink fedilink source parent [–] alehc@slrpnk.net 1 point 2 years ago That's not necessarily true. General-purpose 3rd party models (chatgpt, llama3-70b, etc) perform surprisingly good in very specific tasks. While training or finetuning your specialized model should indeed give you better results, the crazy amount of computational resources and specialized manpower needed to accomplish it makes it unfeasible and unpractical in many applications. If you can get away with an occational "as an AI model...", you are better off using existing models. permalink fedilink source parent [–] TheFarm@lemmy.world 27 points 2 years ago (4 children) This is what baffles me about these papers. Assuming the authors are actually real people, these AI-generated mistakes in publications should be pretty easy to catch and edit. It does make you wonder how many people are successfully putting AI-generated garbage out there if they're careful enough to remove obviously AI-generated sentences. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 2 years ago* (2 children) I definitely utilize AI to assist me in writing papers/essays, but never to just write the whole thing. Mainly use it for structuring or rewording sections to flow better or sound more professional, and always go back to proofread and ensure that any information stays correct. Basically, I provide any data/research and get a rough layout down, and then use AI to speed up the refining process. EDIT: I should note that I am not writing scientific papers using this method, and doing so is probably a bad idea. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] fossilesque@mander.xyz [S] 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 years ago Yeah, same. I’m good at getting my info together and putting my main points down, but structuring everything in a way that flows well just isn’t my strong suit, and I struggle to sit there for long periods of time writing something I could just explain in a few short points, especially if there’s an expectation for a certain length. AI tools help me to get all that done whilst still keeping any core information my own. permalink fedilink source parent [–] MBM@lemmings.world 1 point 2 years ago I've heard the word "delve" has suddenly become a lot more popular in some fields permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 107 points 2 years ago (12 children) This almost makes me think they're trying to fully automate their publishing process. So, no editor in that case. Editors are expensive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 19 points 2 years ago (11 children) If they really want to do it, they can just run a local language model trained to proofread stuff like this. Would be way better permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 12 points 2 years ago (10 children) This is exactly the line of thinking that lead to papers like this being generated. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 1 point 2 years ago (9 children) I don't think so. They are using AI from a 3rd party. If they train their own specialized version, things will be better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 11 points 2 years ago (7 children) Here is a better idea: have some academic integrity and actually do the work instead of using incompetent machine learning to flood the industry with inaccurate trash papers whose only real impact is getting in the way of real research. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 3 points 2 years ago (6 children) There is nothing wrong with using AI to proofread a paper. It's just a grammar checker but better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 4 points 2 years ago (3 children) You can literally use tools to check grammar perfectly without using AI. What the LLM AI does is it predict what word comes next in a sequence, and if the AI is wrong as it often is then you've just attempted to publish a paper with halucinations wasting the time and effort of so many people because you're greedy and lazy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) AI does better at checking for grammar and clarity of message. It's just a fact. I've made comparisons myself using a grammar checker on an essay vs AI and AI corrected it and made it much better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) AI doesn't do anything better than a human being. Human Beings are the training data, an AI that mimics it 98% is still less accurate than the humans. If you suck so much at writing papers then you're just below average as a human being who writes papers and using tools will never remedy that without introspection and a desire to improve. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 2 points 2 years ago You said that "you can literally use tools to check grammar perfectly" I've responded to that claim. No mention of humans. You seem to be projecting permalink fedilink source parent [–] BearGun@ttrpg.network 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Proofreading involves more than just checking grammar, and AIs aren't perfect. I would never put my name on something to get published publicly like this without reading it through at least once myself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 4 points 2 years ago I entirely agree. You should read through something you'll publish. permalink fedilink source parent [–] alehc@slrpnk.net 1 point 2 years ago That's not necessarily true. General-purpose 3rd party models (chatgpt, llama3-70b, etc) perform surprisingly good in very specific tasks. While training or finetuning your specialized model should indeed give you better results, the crazy amount of computational resources and specialized manpower needed to accomplish it makes it unfeasible and unpractical in many applications. If you can get away with an occational "as an AI model...", you are better off using existing models. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 19 points 2 years ago (11 children) If they really want to do it, they can just run a local language model trained to proofread stuff like this. Would be way better permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 12 points 2 years ago (10 children) This is exactly the line of thinking that lead to papers like this being generated. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 1 point 2 years ago (9 children) I don't think so. They are using AI from a 3rd party. If they train their own specialized version, things will be better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 11 points 2 years ago (7 children) Here is a better idea: have some academic integrity and actually do the work instead of using incompetent machine learning to flood the industry with inaccurate trash papers whose only real impact is getting in the way of real research. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 3 points 2 years ago (6 children) There is nothing wrong with using AI to proofread a paper. It's just a grammar checker but better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 4 points 2 years ago (3 children) You can literally use tools to check grammar perfectly without using AI. What the LLM AI does is it predict what word comes next in a sequence, and if the AI is wrong as it often is then you've just attempted to publish a paper with halucinations wasting the time and effort of so many people because you're greedy and lazy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) AI does better at checking for grammar and clarity of message. It's just a fact. I've made comparisons myself using a grammar checker on an essay vs AI and AI corrected it and made it much better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) AI doesn't do anything better than a human being. Human Beings are the training data, an AI that mimics it 98% is still less accurate than the humans. If you suck so much at writing papers then you're just below average as a human being who writes papers and using tools will never remedy that without introspection and a desire to improve. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 2 points 2 years ago You said that "you can literally use tools to check grammar perfectly" I've responded to that claim. No mention of humans. You seem to be projecting permalink fedilink source parent [–] BearGun@ttrpg.network 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Proofreading involves more than just checking grammar, and AIs aren't perfect. I would never put my name on something to get published publicly like this without reading it through at least once myself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 4 points 2 years ago I entirely agree. You should read through something you'll publish. permalink fedilink source parent [–] alehc@slrpnk.net 1 point 2 years ago That's not necessarily true. General-purpose 3rd party models (chatgpt, llama3-70b, etc) perform surprisingly good in very specific tasks. While training or finetuning your specialized model should indeed give you better results, the crazy amount of computational resources and specialized manpower needed to accomplish it makes it unfeasible and unpractical in many applications. If you can get away with an occational "as an AI model...", you are better off using existing models. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 12 points 2 years ago (10 children) This is exactly the line of thinking that lead to papers like this being generated. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 1 point 2 years ago (9 children) I don't think so. They are using AI from a 3rd party. If they train their own specialized version, things will be better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 11 points 2 years ago (7 children) Here is a better idea: have some academic integrity and actually do the work instead of using incompetent machine learning to flood the industry with inaccurate trash papers whose only real impact is getting in the way of real research. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 3 points 2 years ago (6 children) There is nothing wrong with using AI to proofread a paper. It's just a grammar checker but better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 4 points 2 years ago (3 children) You can literally use tools to check grammar perfectly without using AI. What the LLM AI does is it predict what word comes next in a sequence, and if the AI is wrong as it often is then you've just attempted to publish a paper with halucinations wasting the time and effort of so many people because you're greedy and lazy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) AI does better at checking for grammar and clarity of message. It's just a fact. I've made comparisons myself using a grammar checker on an essay vs AI and AI corrected it and made it much better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) AI doesn't do anything better than a human being. Human Beings are the training data, an AI that mimics it 98% is still less accurate than the humans. If you suck so much at writing papers then you're just below average as a human being who writes papers and using tools will never remedy that without introspection and a desire to improve. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 2 points 2 years ago You said that "you can literally use tools to check grammar perfectly" I've responded to that claim. No mention of humans. You seem to be projecting permalink fedilink source parent [–] BearGun@ttrpg.network 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Proofreading involves more than just checking grammar, and AIs aren't perfect. I would never put my name on something to get published publicly like this without reading it through at least once myself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 4 points 2 years ago I entirely agree. You should read through something you'll publish. permalink fedilink source parent [–] alehc@slrpnk.net 1 point 2 years ago That's not necessarily true. General-purpose 3rd party models (chatgpt, llama3-70b, etc) perform surprisingly good in very specific tasks. While training or finetuning your specialized model should indeed give you better results, the crazy amount of computational resources and specialized manpower needed to accomplish it makes it unfeasible and unpractical in many applications. If you can get away with an occational "as an AI model...", you are better off using existing models. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 1 point 2 years ago (9 children) I don't think so. They are using AI from a 3rd party. If they train their own specialized version, things will be better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 11 points 2 years ago (7 children) Here is a better idea: have some academic integrity and actually do the work instead of using incompetent machine learning to flood the industry with inaccurate trash papers whose only real impact is getting in the way of real research. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 3 points 2 years ago (6 children) There is nothing wrong with using AI to proofread a paper. It's just a grammar checker but better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 4 points 2 years ago (3 children) You can literally use tools to check grammar perfectly without using AI. What the LLM AI does is it predict what word comes next in a sequence, and if the AI is wrong as it often is then you've just attempted to publish a paper with halucinations wasting the time and effort of so many people because you're greedy and lazy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) AI does better at checking for grammar and clarity of message. It's just a fact. I've made comparisons myself using a grammar checker on an essay vs AI and AI corrected it and made it much better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) AI doesn't do anything better than a human being. Human Beings are the training data, an AI that mimics it 98% is still less accurate than the humans. If you suck so much at writing papers then you're just below average as a human being who writes papers and using tools will never remedy that without introspection and a desire to improve. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 2 points 2 years ago You said that "you can literally use tools to check grammar perfectly" I've responded to that claim. No mention of humans. You seem to be projecting permalink fedilink source parent [–] BearGun@ttrpg.network 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Proofreading involves more than just checking grammar, and AIs aren't perfect. I would never put my name on something to get published publicly like this without reading it through at least once myself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 4 points 2 years ago I entirely agree. You should read through something you'll publish. permalink fedilink source parent [–] alehc@slrpnk.net 1 point 2 years ago That's not necessarily true. General-purpose 3rd party models (chatgpt, llama3-70b, etc) perform surprisingly good in very specific tasks. While training or finetuning your specialized model should indeed give you better results, the crazy amount of computational resources and specialized manpower needed to accomplish it makes it unfeasible and unpractical in many applications. If you can get away with an occational "as an AI model...", you are better off using existing models. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 11 points 2 years ago (7 children) Here is a better idea: have some academic integrity and actually do the work instead of using incompetent machine learning to flood the industry with inaccurate trash papers whose only real impact is getting in the way of real research. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 3 points 2 years ago (6 children) There is nothing wrong with using AI to proofread a paper. It's just a grammar checker but better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 4 points 2 years ago (3 children) You can literally use tools to check grammar perfectly without using AI. What the LLM AI does is it predict what word comes next in a sequence, and if the AI is wrong as it often is then you've just attempted to publish a paper with halucinations wasting the time and effort of so many people because you're greedy and lazy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) AI does better at checking for grammar and clarity of message. It's just a fact. I've made comparisons myself using a grammar checker on an essay vs AI and AI corrected it and made it much better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) AI doesn't do anything better than a human being. Human Beings are the training data, an AI that mimics it 98% is still less accurate than the humans. If you suck so much at writing papers then you're just below average as a human being who writes papers and using tools will never remedy that without introspection and a desire to improve. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 2 points 2 years ago You said that "you can literally use tools to check grammar perfectly" I've responded to that claim. No mention of humans. You seem to be projecting permalink fedilink source parent [–] BearGun@ttrpg.network 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Proofreading involves more than just checking grammar, and AIs aren't perfect. I would never put my name on something to get published publicly like this without reading it through at least once myself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 4 points 2 years ago I entirely agree. You should read through something you'll publish. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 3 points 2 years ago (6 children) There is nothing wrong with using AI to proofread a paper. It's just a grammar checker but better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 4 points 2 years ago (3 children) You can literally use tools to check grammar perfectly without using AI. What the LLM AI does is it predict what word comes next in a sequence, and if the AI is wrong as it often is then you've just attempted to publish a paper with halucinations wasting the time and effort of so many people because you're greedy and lazy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) AI does better at checking for grammar and clarity of message. It's just a fact. I've made comparisons myself using a grammar checker on an essay vs AI and AI corrected it and made it much better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) AI doesn't do anything better than a human being. Human Beings are the training data, an AI that mimics it 98% is still less accurate than the humans. If you suck so much at writing papers then you're just below average as a human being who writes papers and using tools will never remedy that without introspection and a desire to improve. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 2 points 2 years ago You said that "you can literally use tools to check grammar perfectly" I've responded to that claim. No mention of humans. You seem to be projecting permalink fedilink source parent [–] BearGun@ttrpg.network 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Proofreading involves more than just checking grammar, and AIs aren't perfect. I would never put my name on something to get published publicly like this without reading it through at least once myself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 4 points 2 years ago I entirely agree. You should read through something you'll publish. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 4 points 2 years ago (3 children) You can literally use tools to check grammar perfectly without using AI. What the LLM AI does is it predict what word comes next in a sequence, and if the AI is wrong as it often is then you've just attempted to publish a paper with halucinations wasting the time and effort of so many people because you're greedy and lazy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) AI does better at checking for grammar and clarity of message. It's just a fact. I've made comparisons myself using a grammar checker on an essay vs AI and AI corrected it and made it much better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) AI doesn't do anything better than a human being. Human Beings are the training data, an AI that mimics it 98% is still less accurate than the humans. If you suck so much at writing papers then you're just below average as a human being who writes papers and using tools will never remedy that without introspection and a desire to improve. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 2 points 2 years ago You said that "you can literally use tools to check grammar perfectly" I've responded to that claim. No mention of humans. You seem to be projecting permalink fedilink source parent
[–] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) AI does better at checking for grammar and clarity of message. It's just a fact. I've made comparisons myself using a grammar checker on an essay vs AI and AI corrected it and made it much better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) AI doesn't do anything better than a human being. Human Beings are the training data, an AI that mimics it 98% is still less accurate than the humans. If you suck so much at writing papers then you're just below average as a human being who writes papers and using tools will never remedy that without introspection and a desire to improve. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 2 points 2 years ago You said that "you can literally use tools to check grammar perfectly" I've responded to that claim. No mention of humans. You seem to be projecting permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) AI doesn't do anything better than a human being. Human Beings are the training data, an AI that mimics it 98% is still less accurate than the humans. If you suck so much at writing papers then you're just below average as a human being who writes papers and using tools will never remedy that without introspection and a desire to improve. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 2 points 2 years ago You said that "you can literally use tools to check grammar perfectly" I've responded to that claim. No mention of humans. You seem to be projecting permalink fedilink source parent
[–] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 2 points 2 years ago You said that "you can literally use tools to check grammar perfectly" I've responded to that claim. No mention of humans. You seem to be projecting permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BearGun@ttrpg.network 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Proofreading involves more than just checking grammar, and AIs aren't perfect. I would never put my name on something to get published publicly like this without reading it through at least once myself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 4 points 2 years ago I entirely agree. You should read through something you'll publish. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 4 points 2 years ago I entirely agree. You should read through something you'll publish. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] alehc@slrpnk.net 1 point 2 years ago That's not necessarily true. General-purpose 3rd party models (chatgpt, llama3-70b, etc) perform surprisingly good in very specific tasks. While training or finetuning your specialized model should indeed give you better results, the crazy amount of computational resources and specialized manpower needed to accomplish it makes it unfeasible and unpractical in many applications. If you can get away with an occational "as an AI model...", you are better off using existing models. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TheFarm@lemmy.world 27 points 2 years ago (4 children) This is what baffles me about these papers. Assuming the authors are actually real people, these AI-generated mistakes in publications should be pretty easy to catch and edit. It does make you wonder how many people are successfully putting AI-generated garbage out there if they're careful enough to remove obviously AI-generated sentences. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 2 years ago* (2 children) I definitely utilize AI to assist me in writing papers/essays, but never to just write the whole thing. Mainly use it for structuring or rewording sections to flow better or sound more professional, and always go back to proofread and ensure that any information stays correct. Basically, I provide any data/research and get a rough layout down, and then use AI to speed up the refining process. EDIT: I should note that I am not writing scientific papers using this method, and doing so is probably a bad idea. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] fossilesque@mander.xyz [S] 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 years ago Yeah, same. I’m good at getting my info together and putting my main points down, but structuring everything in a way that flows well just isn’t my strong suit, and I struggle to sit there for long periods of time writing something I could just explain in a few short points, especially if there’s an expectation for a certain length. AI tools help me to get all that done whilst still keeping any core information my own. permalink fedilink source parent [–] MBM@lemmings.world 1 point 2 years ago I've heard the word "delve" has suddenly become a lot more popular in some fields permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 2 years ago* (2 children) I definitely utilize AI to assist me in writing papers/essays, but never to just write the whole thing. Mainly use it for structuring or rewording sections to flow better or sound more professional, and always go back to proofread and ensure that any information stays correct. Basically, I provide any data/research and get a rough layout down, and then use AI to speed up the refining process. EDIT: I should note that I am not writing scientific papers using this method, and doing so is probably a bad idea. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] fossilesque@mander.xyz [S] 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 years ago Yeah, same. I’m good at getting my info together and putting my main points down, but structuring everything in a way that flows well just isn’t my strong suit, and I struggle to sit there for long periods of time writing something I could just explain in a few short points, especially if there’s an expectation for a certain length. AI tools help me to get all that done whilst still keeping any core information my own. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] fossilesque@mander.xyz [S] 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 years ago Yeah, same. I’m good at getting my info together and putting my main points down, but structuring everything in a way that flows well just isn’t my strong suit, and I struggle to sit there for long periods of time writing something I could just explain in a few short points, especially if there’s an expectation for a certain length. AI tools help me to get all that done whilst still keeping any core information my own. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 years ago Yeah, same. I’m good at getting my info together and putting my main points down, but structuring everything in a way that flows well just isn’t my strong suit, and I struggle to sit there for long periods of time writing something I could just explain in a few short points, especially if there’s an expectation for a certain length. AI tools help me to get all that done whilst still keeping any core information my own. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MBM@lemmings.world 1 point 2 years ago I've heard the word "delve" has suddenly become a lot more popular in some fields permalink fedilink source parent