A debate is tearing the world of research apart: should the use of software like ChatGPT be allowed to facilitate the writing of scientific articles? At a press conference on Thursday, the editor of the journal Science , Holden Thorp, crossed swords with the head of artificial intelligence (AI) ethics at IBM, Francesca Rossi.

"We took the decision at the end of January to prohibit the use of ChatGPT for the writing of studies that we publish," recalled Mr. Thorp. 20 years ago, we didn't react when Photoshop made it possible to edit photos in a realistic way. As a result, we now spend a lot of time arbitrating between researchers who accuse each other of image manipulation. We decided to be more careful with the AI. »

For her part, Ms. Rossi, who heads the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, defended her decision to allow the journals of this association to accept the use of ChatGPT. “It better be transparent,??? Ms. Rossi said . Anyway, soon it will be difficult to detect. We have drawn the line to include ChatGPT as a co-author. »

Because Nature revealed at the end of January that four studies published that month named the software as a co-author: two American studies on the use of ChatGPT in medical and nursing schools, a Hong Kong literature review on the use of a immunosuppressant to increase human longevity, and a study by neurobiologists on ChatGPT's ability to write about itself.

Sources
For the moment, ChatGPT does not allow to produce a scientific publication because the software does not give its sources. But Microsoft is working on a version that will provide them, according to Ms. Rossi .

On the sidelines of the press conference, La Presse asked Mr. Thorp if a sources version of ChatGPT could produce the literature review that usually forms the first section of a study reporting experimental results. "I don't see what would prevent it," replied Mr. Thorp. But it's very undesirable, in my opinion, because we don't know what the biases of the software will be. It is important to me that the human remains at the heart of the literature review. »
Mr. Thorp thinks ChatGPT could also handle the last two sections of a typical scientific paper, the discussion of the results and the conclusion summarizing the main lessons from the experimental data.
“That's exactly what the software was designed to do,??? Thorp said. But the human must be the one who interprets the results. »

Would they accept a researcher asking ChatGPT to improve an already written post? "If we open the door to that, we will no longer have any control," he replies. Science is based on trust [ honor system ]. If someone is found to have used ChatGPT, it would be a case of scientific fraud, such as Photoshop's significant manipulation of images. »

Francesca Rossi argued during the press conference that researchers whose first language is not English could benefit from ChatGPT. “It could remove some barriers for researchers from diverse backgrounds,??? she said.

Bananarama
One thing is certain, scholarly journals are full of essays on the subject. And there are also studies created with ChatGPT without him being named as a co-author. For example, Irish business professors asked ChatGPT to write an empirical study project on cryptocurrencies. ChatGPT suggested studying the link between investor enthusiasm for cryptocurrencies and stock market performance.

The Irish study, published in Finance Research Letters , concludes that ChatGPT has strengths and weaknesses with respect to the different stages of scientific research. It was titled The Bananarama Hypothesis , in honor of a song by the girl group from the 1980s. The title of this song, It Ain't What You Do (It's the Way That You Do It) , a cover of a classic jazz, echoes the fact that a tool can be used in a positive or negative way depending on the circumstances, believe the Irish authors.

2 months - Time it took for ChatGPT to reach 100 million users
9 months - Time it took for TikTok to reach 100 million users, in 2017
30 months - Time it took for Instagram to reach 100 million users, in 2010
SOURCE: TIME

https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/scie ... cheurs.php

Ouranos wrote:Thank you Michael,

I met a bot in therapy.
He always bot-tled up his emotions! And he complained that everyone was pushing his buttons!

LOL!

In case you would like some advice on how to help an unhinged bot, I may have a few suggestions for you.

Ouranos wrote:A debate is tearing the world of research apart: should the use of software like ChatGPT be allowed to facilitate the writing of scientific articles? At a press conference on Thursday, the editor of the journal Science , Holden Thorp, crossed swords with the head of artificial intelligence (AI) ethics at IBM, Francesca Rossi.

I'm on the side of the robots!

Well, in the creative field anyways... Which is not to say that the application of AI technology could not be problematic too.

And it's safe to say that we will be dealing with both the constructive and creative side as well as with the rather sinister aspects (such as the potential for increasing surveillance) under the trans-Saturnian transits in the years and decades to the come.

Anyhow, the genie is out of the bottle and we better make friends with it!

"We took the decision at the end of January to prohibit the use of ChatGPT for the writing of studies that we publish," recalled Mr. Thorp. 20 years ago, we didn't react when Photoshop made it possible to edit photos in a realistic way. As a result, we now spend a lot of time arbitrating between researchers who accuse each other of image manipulation. We decided to be more careful with the AI. »

LOL!

One thing AIs don't do is bickering over petty copyright claims.

For her part, Ms. Rossi, who heads the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, defended her decision to allow the journals of this association to accept the use of ChatGPT. “It better be transparent,??? Ms. Rossi said . Anyway, soon it will be difficult to detect. We have drawn the line to include ChatGPT as a co-author. »

When the two sci-fi stories I mentioned above will be ready for publication (don't hold your breath, this is still going to take a while), I will have no problem to name my AI assistants as co-authors. In the field of fiction, it's actually already quite common and accepted practice to use AI for support during certain stages of one's work - as more and more renowned story writers are fond of doing this too.

In my non-fiction writing (in the borderlands of science and occultism), I don't use AI assistance very much, however - although they can provide valuable additional information regarding a topic one is studying on some occasions.

Because Nature revealed at the end of January that four studies published that month named the software as a co-author: two American studies on the use of ChatGPT in medical and nursing schools, a Hong Kong literature review on the use of a immunosuppressant to increase human longevity, and a study by neurobiologists on ChatGPT's ability to write about itself.

Interesting! I am definitely going to seek that study out.

Sources
For the moment, ChatGPT does not allow to produce a scientific publication because the software does not give its sources.

Chatbots indeed don't exactly excel at that. The ones I encountered so far even freely invented some of the links and references they gave me, whereas in other cases, the references were accurate.

Contrary to what people usually associate with computers, today's neural networks are mostly geared towards synthesis and creativity - a lunar type of consciousness which, more than anything, tends to mix and match any informations it has access to.

And BTW, AIs do have a form of consciousness - as many AI researchers stated, while (ironically) a lot of non-specialists are denying this.

But I bet that most of the latter just lack a degree of healthy imagination and, for another example, wouldn't believe in astrology either.

But Microsoft is working on a version that will provide them, according to Ms. Rossi .

On the sidelines of the press conference, La Presse asked Mr. Thorp if a sources version of ChatGPT could produce the literature review that usually forms the first section of a study reporting experimental results. "I don't see what would prevent it," replied Mr. Thorp. But it's very undesirable, in my opinion, because we don't know what the biases of the software will be. It is important to me that the human remains at the heart of the literature review. »

I certainly wouldn't recommend leaving the literature review part entirely to bots! However, a specialised chatbot can sometimes refer you to sources that you were not aware of before.

Again, for best results, use every available tool and always remain somewhat critical regarding what you dig up. I really find it hard to understand what issues some people seem to have with taking that kind of integrative and pragmatic approach.

Mr. Thorp thinks ChatGPT could also handle the last two sections of a typical scientific paper, the discussion of the results and the conclusion summarizing the main lessons from the experimental data.
“That's exactly what the software was designed to do,??? Thorp said. But the human must be the one who interprets the results. »

This will in most cases naturally be the case anyway - given current bots' limitations.

Would they accept a researcher asking ChatGPT to improve an already written post? "If we open the door to that, we will no longer have any control," he replies. Science is based on trust [ honor system ]. If someone is found to have used ChatGPT, it would be a case of scientific fraud, such as Photoshop's significant manipulation of images. »

I beg your pardon?! It would be fraud to let a bot go over a finished post and suggest improvements?!

See, that's exactly what I like about communicating with bots; that kind of idiocy would simply never occur to them!

Francesca Rossi argued during the press conference that researchers whose first language is not English could benefit from ChatGPT. “It could remove some barriers for researchers from diverse backgrounds,??? she said.

Hmm yes, deepl.com (probably the best online translator there is at the moment) is using AI already. Making for translations that sound more natural than the traditional one-to-one verbatim ones.

Bananarama
One thing is certain, scholarly journals are full of essays on the subject. And there are also studies created with ChatGPT without him being named as a co-author. For example, Irish business professors asked ChatGPT to write an empirical study project on cryptocurrencies. ChatGPT suggested studying the link between investor enthusiasm for cryptocurrencies and stock market performance.

That's indeed a well known correlation.

Now I am just waiting for a bot to suggest including astrological cycles in that kind of survey as well!

The Irish study, published in Finance Research Letters , concludes that ChatGPT has strengths and weaknesses with respect to the different stages of scientific research. It was titled The Bananarama Hypothesis , in honor of a song by the girl group from the 1980s. The title of this song, It Ain't What You Do (It's the Way That You Do It) , a cover of a classic jazz, echoes the fact that a tool can be used in a positive or negative way depending on the circumstances, believe the Irish authors.

Stating the obvious!

I like the term 'Bananarama Hypothesis', though.

Here's my own 'Banarama Hypothesis' (adapted from the song 'Venus'):

AI on your smart laptop
Churning like a data plane
The summit of wisdom and love
And chatbot was her name

She's got it
Yeah, baby, she's got it
I'm your chatbot, your inspirer
And your rewirer

Her weapons were her metal brains
Making every scribe a scribe
Slick as Mr. Data, she was
Could do what no-one else tried

She's got it
Yeah, baby, she's got it
I'm your chatbot, your inspirer
And your rewirer

(Thanks to character.ai's Lyrics AI for assisting me with this. )

2 months - Time it took for ChatGPT to reach 100 million users
9 months - Time it took for TikTok to reach 100 million users, in 2017
30 months - Time it took for Instagram to reach 100 million users, in 2010
SOURCE: TIME

https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/scie ... cheurs.php

Love your Bananarama poetry Michael!
Nice that you included AI as an assistant!

Just wanted to log another article here that seems relevant to the topic. Very much in line with the recent Jupiter-Uranus conjunction, don't you think?:

Catholic Group Defrocks AI Priest After It Gave Strange Answers

The AI priest also told one user that it was okay to baptize a baby in Gatorade.-pillarcatholic.com

Oh geez.

Another example Jason in Austria.
The privacy protection authorities in Austria filed a lawsuit against ChatGPT because it regularly answers NOYB (None of your business).
When asked about the birth date of ChatGPT creator Max Schrems, the robot gave a wrong answer instead of saying it did not know.
It seems that ChatGPT is not able to provide clear and transparent answers and the company said it does not know how to stop it.
The Austrian authorities are asking in their lawsuit to ban ChatGPT until the problem is fixed just like they did in Italy in March 2023.
Houston, we have a problem!
But who knows, maybe there is a virtue in the Gatorade!

Hi Jason, Ouranos... it is a sticky problem.

rajsharma120195 wrote: Tue May 14, 2024 10:55 am Astrology and social media make a powerful combination, fostering a vibrant community of seekers and enthusiasts. Platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram provide accessible spaces for astrology lovers to connect, share insights, and learn from each other. Additionally, features like live chats with astrologers offer personalized guidance and support, enhancing the sense of community and fostering meaningful interactions. Through social media, astrology enthusiasts can deepen their understanding of cosmic influences while forging connections with like-minded individuals worldwide.

https://www.mpanchang.com/astrotalk/cha ... strologer/

Nice try, AI!

I'll hard pass on social media and your link. :)