Re:ChatGPT in Academic Writing
by ravi-delia on Sunday March 05, 2023 @06:45PM
(#35035535)
I'd rather not include it at all, for exactly that reason. It's just a writing tool- the paper is either correct or incorrect on the same basis as any other paper. We include bibliographies to ensure that the relevant scientific data is present, but I don't think there's any reason to say that a non-reproducible abstract isn't science
[ Parent
| on HN ]
It belongs in the acknowledgments, along with Bob’s wife who did a bit of proofreading, Steve McProfessor who had a chat with the authors once, and whatever software was used for the figures.
This. It’s crazy that people are thinking we should _credit_ the model as if it were an author. It’s a tool, and should be usable without limit.
It would however be nice to have a mode where any output that matches some existing text in the training set could be highlighted, to help one avoid unintentional plagiarism.
Plagiarism will undergo a change in definition.
Re:ChatGPT in Academic Writing
by anticensor on Monday March 06, 2023 @02:41AM
(#35038450)
Plagiarism used to be norm until mass similarity checking has been available.