Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists

Re:Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists by SketchySeaBeast on Thursday January 12, 2023 @03:18PM (#34359705)

I think it has an important difference for ChatGPT - it likes to generate numbers that make absolutely no sense. A human that lies will try to generate sufficiently correct data to convince. ChatGPT often won't even make an attempt to produce values that fit.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists by daveguy on Thursday January 12, 2023 @03:51PM (#34360063)

I guess that's good for us meat beings. Better for an AI to incompetently lie than competently lie.

I wonder if having AI models available would make it significantly easier to identify material created by that model. Seems it would be easier, but it would still be a big problem. Nets can be trained to identify ai vs not ai on a given model. And that's without needing access to the model weights, just training examples. But when there are N potential models...

Edit: Second paragraph added later.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists by neaden on Thursday January 12, 2023 @04:28PM (#34360488)

ChatGPT right now also likes to make up fake citations when you ask it how it knows something, which could be checked quickly.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists by InCityDreams on Thursday January 12, 2023 @05:33PM (#34361211)

...request an example [I've tried, avail is none].

[ Parent | on HN ]