Science

13182 readers

3 users here now

Subscribe to see new publications and popular science coverage of current research on your homepage

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

MinutePhrase@lemmy.ml

125

Signs of undeclared ChatGPT use in papers mounting (retractionwatch.com)

submitted 1 year ago by floofloof@lemmy.ca to c/science@lemmy.ml

45 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] stockRot@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

... Did you read the article? Language tools like grammarly and deepL are in use by scientists today. Copying+pasting the output of chatGPT without ever looking at it, or even using a language tool to publish thoughts that were never in your head to begin with, is the actual concern

[–] PoisonedPrisonPanda@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago

Did you read the article?

I for sure didnt.

Thanks for highlighting that.

I was carried away by having the discussions at my university with my peers in mind.

Copying+pasting the output of chatGPT without ever looking at it, or even using a language tool to publish thoughts that were never in your head to begin with, is the actual concern

Nevertheless I dont understand why this is a concern.

The scientific standards existed decades if not already at least a century.

Those discussions are putting chatgpt in a bad light. However the fact that our scientific system was eroded and made a mockery of before the introduction of chatgpt is not highlighted.

There are still plagiarizations around and nobody cares. Mostly because of political sensitivity.

However science has failed to repel "bad actors" (intentional or unintentional) from the scene.

I dont know when. And why. But publisher have for sure something to do with it.