Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ChatGPT generates fake data set to support scientific hypothesis

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 159 posts

Re: ChatGPT generates fake data set to support scientific hypothesis

#111

Post by ethanbond »

swatcoder wrote: post #108
ethanbond wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we pretending GPT isn’t a leagues better data-faker than Faker?

As always, it depends on your requirements. GPT definitely wins out if you want more novelty/variety in your fake data and are willing to accept extraordinarily higher cost, less rigor, and less reliability. I'm sure there's some occasion when those criteria win out, but Faker's pretty decent most of the time.

Thankfully using GPT doesn’t preclude you from using Faker, so I think we can all agree this is strictly an improvement in one’s ability to fake data.

Re: ChatGPT generates fake data set to support scientific hypothesis

#112

Post by thomastjeffery »

hunter2_ wrote: post #94
thomastjeffery wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably. It's easy to mistake entropy for novelty. Computers don't create: they compute. Calling an LLM "Artificial Intelligence" is a bit like mistaking a pseudorandom number generator for true noise.

I think that by that same logic, you could say human artists, writers, etc. don't create either, they just move existing matter (which typically isn't created nor destroyed) from one place to another. You could also say an electric company doesn't generate electricity but merely converts other energy into it -- one of the most popular uses of the word "generator" yet the atoms/energy are already here; we just arrange…

We think objectively about it. We have goals and intentions. We use logic. LLMs don't.

The dirt in the ground sorts impurities from water, but we don't call it intelligent or generative. We call it entropy.

Re: ChatGPT generates fake data set to support scientific hypothesis

#114

Post by vikramkr »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #83
vikramkr wrote: post #69

It's awesome to know that the scientific process that's been in use for centuries, based on peer review and the importance of replication, is still so powerful that AI generated fake data can't do anything to undermine it. Reality doesn't care how the data was faked when you replicate an experiment! Now, if only scientists and institutions would actually bother using those tools we developed centuries ago. Unfortunat…

I’d be interested in seeing how AI can help replicate. Apparently, we have a replication crisis. From what I hear, many papers can’t be replicated, and we don’t know, because no one tries.

Ironically one of the major papers that showed that many findings couldn't be replicated couldn't be replicated. Academia is packed to the brim with perverse incentives. It's amazing that scientists are creative and capable enough to keep consistently changing the world and gaining deep, extraordinary, and replicable insights into our universe in a broken system. It would be nice if they didn't need to fight the system though, see the story of the mRNA vaccine nobel and how hard she had to fight against the establishment to do the research that would end up saving a truly staggering number of lives

Re: ChatGPT generates fake data set to support scientific hypothesis

#115

Post by muzani »

dclowd9901 wrote: post #47
sigmar wrote: post #16

>“It will make it very easy for any researcher or group of researchers to create fake measurements on non-existent patients, fake answers to questionnaires or to generate a large data set on animal experiments.” Perhaps I'm naive, but I think the people that want to fake data were already doing it without tools like chatgpt. Especially since a ton of biological data is normally distributed, so it's exceedingly easy t…

So we’re pretending making something an order of magnitude easier makes no difference? Ok.

Sure, but what do you expect? It's like blaming Boeing for genocide and then trying to get rid of 747s.

There's plenty of research into AI safety. There were some damn coups going on over AI safety. The general public defines AI safety as Skynet and homemade bombs, but it's also things like this - political manipulation, astroturfing, fake data, the risk of another industrial revolution.

It's something we should be slamming the brakes on, but most of the people calling out AI safety are also building their own B52 bombers, so nobody takes them seriously either.

80000 Hours has been telling people to get into AI and nuclear policy for years now. Hopefully we have some competent people in govs who do something.

Re: ChatGPT generates fake data set to support scientific hypothesis

#116

Post by lakpan »

Aloha wrote: post #113

How long til I can produce a paper that says smoking is good for you, and will extend life or increase quality of life? ;-)

Smokers are more likely to be social, so they have a better quality of life. Done.

As for extending life… social creatures live more? therefore smoking extends life.

Re: ChatGPT generates fake data set to support scientific hypothesis

#118

Post by SrslyJosh »

mmasu wrote: post #29

In this instance the ability to generate fake data is seen as negative, however in other realms it’s seen as a feature, rather than a bug. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_data or in scientific literature: https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.09191 a few companies are doing exclusively this

Yes, there are situations where it's useful to generate plausible fake data, but those are the exception, not the rule.

Re: ChatGPT generates fake data set to support scientific hypothesis

#120

Post by throwaway14356 »

egberts1 wrote: post #86
lacrimacida wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ChatGPT will unlock new levels of both good and bad. The question is what the ratio between the two is going to be.

If you think about it, it will make 99% of ChatGPT answer technically INCORRECT. It is harder to keep bad data out than it is to keep it filled with good data.

which is the best kind of incorrect?
Post reply on HN