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

ChatGPT has 190 citations on Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–29 of 29 posts

Re: ChatGPT has 190 citations on Google Scholar

#21

Post by tokai »

epolanski wrote: post #16
tokai wrote: post #14

Earlier 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.

>the power of LLMs applied to biology

Could you substantiate this? There is no connection to biology/bioscience/etc. in the text. That is why its embarrassing that they published it - it has nothing to do with the journal. There are so many other journals where it might make sense to publish such a thing (AI/education/science studies/etc.). But here it just seems like they couldn't manage to get a proper editorial for the issue.

Re: ChatGPT has 190 citations on Google Scholar

#24

Post by WolfOliver »

crazygringo wrote: post #3

The 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."

[Author’s note: These are not real references, unfortunately.]

Re: ChatGPT has 190 citations on Google Scholar

#28

Post by contrarian1234 »

cod3rboy wrote: post #17

Is it right to recognize ChatGPT as a scholar? Shouldn't we just treat it like any other software tool?

- software tools are cited (you often will site a paper describing the tool). If a tool generates a value and then later a bug is discovered, it's important that the tool was cited.

- one purpose of a citation is to make a clear distinction which work/words are your own and which are not. Are you making a statement because it's based on past work, your own inference, or the hallucination of a LLM? With ChatGPT it's easy to get confused

- there is also the more general issue of academic integrity. You shouldn't submit other people's/machine's words as your own

Maybe more correctly ChatGPT should be on the authors' list ;)

Re: ChatGPT has 190 citations on Google Scholar

#29

Post by Devasta »

ethanbond wrote: post #9
candiddevmike wrote: post #7

Is 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…

There is a demand for Low Background Steel, steel produced before the Nuclear Bombs were dropped, for use in Geiger counters and the like. It's usually salvaged from the wrecks of sunken WW1 ships, as that is the only way to guarantee no radiation.

The same will happen to data sets from pre-2022, everything beyond that will be rapidly polluted with AI nonsense.

Post reply on HN