141–150 of 156 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
and it is how? you replied to satire/dystopian fiction. it is by definition not what it is. and it doesn't have to be. by saying oh it's inevitable believe me, "the only surety that we have" (casually inserting we like everyone is the same on that) etc. you are trying to normalize it, painting anyone not on board as not part of "us", outcast, old fashioned and anti progress. often when people do this sort of attempt…
Have a great day!
It’s a joke and all but also not really? You might have to go do a chalk talk at some point, and that is basically the only part of this article that is actually not real. The rest (about how everyone in academia is prompting everything) is absolutely VERY real. The word around all the scientific communities which I’m in contact with (to be honest, not so many) is basically “oh, there is no way to stop it, so we’ll e…
The "not really" aspect is so significant that it's barely a joke. It's more serious and thought provoking than a simple joke. I guess that's how good satire works. This in particular I found quite interesting: "My research is a collaboration between me and several large language models. We are co-investigators. When you ask me to explain my research without ChatGPT, you are asking me to speak on behalf of a collabor…
It’s a joke and all but also not really? You might have to go do a chalk talk at some point, and that is basically the only part of this article that is actually not real. The rest (about how everyone in academia is prompting everything) is absolutely VERY real. The word around all the scientific communities which I’m in contact with (to be honest, not so many) is basically “oh, there is no way to stop it, so we’ll e…
The "not really" aspect is so significant that it's barely a joke. It's more serious and thought provoking than a simple joke. I guess that's how good satire works. This in particular I found quite interesting: "My research is a collaboration between me and several large language models. We are co-investigators. When you ask me to explain my research without ChatGPT, you are asking me to speak on behalf of a collabor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what makes it good satire. But if you honestly think that someone applying for a postdoc can't explain what their research is about, it's on you.
Applying for a position is a much lower bar than having any chance of landing the position. I’ve interviewed someone for a programming position. The guy practically nailed the standard quiz (done at leisure before the interview), but was unable to explain why he answered what he answered. When we got to reviewing a little program (compare two strings, see if the distribution of letters is the same), he could not walk…
That's the point. This is the bar.
>Still, sometimes, frauds do slip through.
You're projecting your experience in IT on academia, and I can't emphasize strongly enough how far off you are. Which was why this piece was written: that reality is already here in software engineering. The entire point is: if this seems absurd in the context of the piece, why would you accept this anywhere else?
In any case, this satire wasn't written from the point of view of a fraud. And if it doesn't seem outright absurd to you, you need to get a reality check.
This is satire.
Honest question : does it need to be said ? It's like the /s sign. Can some people not, for themselves, realize that this text is meant as a more or less a joke ? And before you ask, yeah, I am aware some of the people are on the spectrum, but still... Is humor that hard to grasp on the internet ?
Problem is that the Internet is too big that there actually could be someone writing this as a serious blog post. For this one it was quite obvious at some point, but when only reading the first few paragraphs I am very certain that there could be someone out there meaning it serious (sadly).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The person in the story can clearly usefully steer LLMs if they got that far. So either they have that understanding and context, or it's not actually as valuable as was previously thought.
She says she can usefully steer LLMs, but how would she know? What knowledge of the research topic, methods and their applicability would she use to judge that, if all she’s doing is writing a prompt asking ChatGPT to write a summary of her research topic, methods and their applicability? Supposing using LLMs as research tools is fine, the chalk talk is still necessary to test that the researcher has the fundamental…
Like, I'm sorry, you can't just walk into those off the street. Don't be absurd. I suppose you could say the entire system was happy to spend 4 years lying to her about her grades? But at that point it's "corrupt system completely fails a young student who was enthralled by new technology"
> test that the researcher has the fundamental skills and knowledge necessary to discriminate usefully between alternative responses
... and how, exactly, is she gonna demonstrate that if she can't prompt it in the first place?
> “now refine that reply for my specific needs”
That absolutely works if you've discussed your specific needs with the model for four years and it has dozens of memories and reference files to work from.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The person in the story can clearly usefully steer LLMs if they got that far. So either they have that understanding and context, or it's not actually as valuable as was previously thought.
She can’t answer a single thing without opening her laptop.
Like, I get why we'd want a pilot not to need ChatGPT, but a scientist is not in any of those categories.
Calling it "Discrimination" is obviously absurd but if the process produces useful results, one ought to seriously consider whether it might be worth switching. I understand we have always conventionally transported goods by horse. Yes, this employee knows nothing about horses, and in fact is rather spooked by them, but we've checked! Their claim to be able to transport goods faster, without a horse, somehow seems to…
Found Rachel. Thinking and doing things with this archaic thing called “brain” is not a horse, and using LLM is not a truck.
Why are you even on the internet if you value this "brain" thing so much?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But when humans do it suddenly it's "standing on the shoulders of giants" I don't get how you can possibly call it plagiarism if it produce a novel breakthrough - by definition, the existing knowledge base doesn't contain the new ideas generated in this process. And we've proven it can handle complex, novel thinking when it solved a significant Erdos problem back in May: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ai-…
The difference is thinking for yourself
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference is thinking for yourself
Sorry, what about solving an open mathematics problem is not "thinking for yourself"? What exactly WOULD constitute "thinking for yourself", or is this just a magic soul thing?
you press a button and a machine creates a derivative work from some books = plagiarism (mostly by people who made the machine and charge you for it, maybe arguably you but that's a different question)