91–100 of 112 posts
It's also possible that humans are starting to sound more like LLMs too, due to reading (wittingly or otherwise) more LLM output.
It's easy to notice, even on this website, when a comment starts with "It's worth noting that...". It sounds very LLM-esque.
I don't see why many people complaining on this issue. Not everyone mastered English unfortunately. I am especially very weak at writing a paper, and to be honest, find it taxing. I love research but after having results, turning it into a paper is not fun. I edit almost everything important I write like emails and papers with LLMs because even though the content is nice my writing feels very bland and lacks lots of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree, I think a successful writing voice involves reading a lot of different styles and picking the elements that really speak to you.
I disagree respectfully. Before I write anything substantial, I re-read the few books that I really like to let me subconsciously absorb their elements. If I read modern journalism right before I write, whatever I write will be just like modern journalism: bland and boring. At least for me, there is a very large but temporally proximate influence between what I read and what I write.
It’s possible this is caused by the editors rather than the authors. An old partner edited papers for a large publisher - largely written by non-native speakers and already heavily machine translated - and would almost always use ChatGPT for the first pass when extensive changes were needed. She was paid by the word and also had a pretty intense daily minimum quota so it was practically required to get enough done to…
> We show that the appearance of LLM-based writing assistants has had an unprecedented impact in the scientific literature, surpassing the effect of major world events such as the Covid pandemic. I'm not quite sure this follows. At the very least, I think they should also consider the possibility of social contagion: if some of your colleagues start using a new word in work-related writing, you usually pick that up.…
I have friends in academia (all around Europe and in different fields, from Spain to Danemark, Slovakia, Sweden, Germany, in economics, solid state physics, &c.), I can 100% guarantee you're wrong and chatgpt is now the default tool for the vast majority of people writing these papers. It's not people picking up new words, you have to understand academia is mostly about shitting out as many papers as you can and make…
I'm in a similar sort of circle and I can say that this, though I've not measured rigorously, does strongly square with my own anecdotal experience, and it's especially prevalent with people whose first language is not English but have no choice but to publish (frequently) and apply for grants in English.
So many of the writing assistant tools customarily used for first-pass proofreading have gone straight into full LLM integration and no longer simply just check grammar and basic "elements of style" issues.
Also professional (human) proofreaders are fantastically expensive for the very limited amount of assistance date provide. A couple thousand dollars more (source for this number, a proofreader recommended by Oxford U Pub) for someone to fix some minor semantic redundancies in your 35 page book chapter wording is financially unreasonable for a lot of people in academia.
Their list: delves crucial potential these significant important They're not the first to make this observation. Others have picked up that LLM's like the word "delves". LLMs are trained on texts which contain much marketing material. So they tend to use some marketing words when generating pseudo-academic content. No surprise there. I'm surprised it's not worse. What happens if you use a prompt containing "Write in…
But I guess I'll just get flagged for being a GPT now.
It's also possible that humans are starting to sound more like LLMs too, due to reading (wittingly or otherwise) more LLM output.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you plagiarized for your paper? I mean, people seem to be in agreement that studios using visual AI generated art that draws from existing works is plagiarism, so how did you not commit academic fraud? Did you consider that encountering challenges with expressing yourself and overcoming them is the pedagogical purpose for papers like that? I am assuming your paper was for a class, given your comparison to calculat…
> So you plagiarized for your paper? I don't think I did. And no, it wasn't for a class. Please be more considered before throwing out accusations of academic misconduct. That is a very heavy term. Anyway, I don't think what I did is any more "academic misconduct" than using Grammerly is academic misconduct. They're both uses of LLMs, sure. But the uses are different and we need to start differentiating them. If you…
Please throw all of my comment into whatever LLM you used to respond, as I pointed out and explained the academic contextual assumption I made. If you are focusing on my phrase "for a class" here, and this paper was actually for an academic conference or journal, then yes! you have committed academic misconduct.
>f you think AI generated art is plagerism, would you therefore conclude that photoshop's content aware fill is plagerism, since it uses the same AI models?
Absolutely, if you are talking about some of the new ones that use stable diffusion and other visual generative models. It might be fine if you're doing it in a commercial setting and those models' licenses authorize you to do so, but using that for a situation in which the art is assumed to be yours (an art class project or for a commission in which the contract states you are producing it) would be fraud.
>Seems pretty strange to assume my teachers were right given you have no idea what country I went to school in or what their policy was on calculators.
Given that you didn't really dispute my point and rather attacked the grounds for it, and that you invented a false premise of your own (that calculator policies are a per-country thing ???), I'm gonna assume your Australian teachers' policy was applicable to my point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So you plagiarized for your paper? I don't think I did. And no, it wasn't for a class. Please be more considered before throwing out accusations of academic misconduct. That is a very heavy term. Anyway, I don't think what I did is any more "academic misconduct" than using Grammerly is academic misconduct. They're both uses of LLMs, sure. But the uses are different and we need to start differentiating them. If you…
>I don't think I did. And no, it wasn't for a class. Please be more considered before throwing out accusations of academic misconduct. Please throw all of my comment into whatever LLM you used to respond, as I pointed out and explained the academic contextual assumption I made. If you are focusing on my phrase "for a class" here, and this paper was actually for an academic conference or journal, then yes! you have co…
Rude. Rude and wrong.
> If [...] this paper was actually for an academic conference or journal, then yes! you have committed academic misconduct.
This is a surprising perspective given that in many ways I had the same conversation with chatgpt about my work that I might have had with a colleague or a spouse. The biggest difference is that chatgpt's suggested improvements weren't very good, and none of its suggestions ended up in the final text. Is it the product of plagerism?
I absolutely believe that ChatGPT is being overused in academia, just like stackoverflow is in professional programming. But I don't think we have any consensus as to where the line should be between "acceptable use" and plagerism. To me, banning the tool outright would be as silly as banning google search, banning calculators outright in schools or banning artists from using photoshop. (And yes, people made the same argument about photoshop when it was invented - that art made with it wasn't really art because the computer did all the heavy lifting.)
> Given that you didn't really dispute my point and rather attacked the grounds for it, and that you invented a false premise of your own (that calculator policies are a per-country thing ???)
Of course. The grounds for your argument is where it unraveled. You claimed that my teachers had the right calculator policy, but you didn't (and still don't) have enough information to make that claim because you don't know the policy my teachers had.
I would have told you if you asked, but you didn't. You simply went on the attack assuming you had all the facts. And now in this followup message, you have doubled down on your mistake.
For reference, of course the calculator policy at my Australian school in the 90s was different from yours. We generally weren't allowed calculators on the school grounds at all. That started to change right at the end of high school, when they started allowing calculators in class and non-graphing calculators in examinations. (They checked as we walked in the door). But for most of my grade school experience, calculators were banned.