ChatGPT - World Renowned Scholar
Great, we have a stochastic parrot writing scholarly articles.
This will not make everything on Internet even more difficult to separate from bullshit. /intense sarcasm
ChatGPT has 190 citations on Google Scholar
11–20 of 29 posts
Re: ChatGPT has 190 citations on Google Scholar
#12This is one paper with 190 citations and one paper with no citations.
The paper is only 2 pages in a prompt-response format, un-edited. The prompts are specific and ask for paragraphs about chatbots, AI and plagiarism. The author's note at the end, after ChatGPT was asked for references and gave several, is:
> Author’s note: These are not real references, unfortunately.
Edit: One more point -- Even though it was published in Cellular and Molecular Bioengineering it really doesn't have to do with either. It's a quick read.
Re: ChatGPT has 190 citations on Google Scholar
#13Is this the beginning of the LLM ouroboros? Does ChatGPT do anything different with training data it produced?
How would it know? If anything this is one of the only places where it’s not an ouroboros because of the citations. But yeah, I have to imagine LLM-produce material is already on its way back into the next models. I wonder how this problem is perceived among the people building these systems. Given that they’re not yet near ASI or AGI yet, it’s gotta be close to an existential issue, no? Maybe not “your company will…
In this instance, it would know because of the citations.
Re: ChatGPT has 190 citations on Google Scholar
#14The actual article generating all 190 citations: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12195-022-00754-8 > "Author's note: This article was written by the ChatGPT chatbot, in response to prompts from MK. That human-chatbot conversation is presented here, without editing."
Embarrassing that they published that. Should not have been more than a blog post.
Re: ChatGPT has 190 citations on Google Scholar
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would it know? If anything this is one of the only places where it’s not an ouroboros because of the citations. But yeah, I have to imagine LLM-produce material is already on its way back into the next models. I wonder how this problem is perceived among the people building these systems. Given that they’re not yet near ASI or AGI yet, it’s gotta be close to an existential issue, no? Maybe not “your company will…
In this instance, it would know because of the citations.
As I noted above :)
Re: ChatGPT has 190 citations on Google Scholar
#16The actual article generating all 190 citations: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12195-022-00754-8 > "Author's note: This article was written by the ChatGPT chatbot, in response to prompts from MK. That human-chatbot conversation is presented here, without editing."
Embarrassing that they published that. Should not have been more than a blog post.
I actually think the opposite.
This underlines several things at once, the power of LLMs applied to biology and the future of scientific papers integrity on the other hand.
Re: ChatGPT has 190 citations on Google Scholar
#17Is it right to recognize ChatGPT as a scholar? Shouldn't we just treat it like any other software tool?
Re: ChatGPT has 190 citations on Google Scholar
#18A paper produced by ChatGPT is plagiarism taken to its logical extremity.
Re: ChatGPT has 190 citations on Google Scholar
#19The actual article generating all 190 citations: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12195-022-00754-8 > "Author's note: This article was written by the ChatGPT chatbot, in response to prompts from MK. That human-chatbot conversation is presented here, without editing."
That's actually a very interesting paper.
Re: ChatGPT has 190 citations on Google Scholar
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Embarrassing that they published that. Should not have been more than a blog post.
I actually think the opposite. This underlines several things at once, the power of LLMs applied to biology and the future of scientific papers integrity on the other hand.
I wouldn't exactly call it "powerful" with respect to LLMs applied to biology. It reads more like an opinion piece with some background context (which is not bad) and fake references.
Even though it was published in Cellular and Molecular Bioengineering, it really doesn't have anything to do with Cellular or Molecular Bioengineering.