• stockRot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    … 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      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.