221
We're sorry. (mander.xyz)
top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 64 points 7 months ago

"was not detected by the authors....".... BULLSHIT.

The author was chatGPT. At least of that phrase. the claimed-author... used chatGPT. There's zero justifiable excuse for the author to be totally unaware. they "wrote" it, after all.

[-] Turun@feddit.de 60 points 7 months ago

No shit it's bullshit. It's a meme about AI text in a research paper that makes fun of Elsevier by having ChatGPT write an apology template for Elsevier.

[-] Albbi@lemmy.ca 14 points 7 months ago

The scary part is the editors, copyeditors and the reviewers not catching this. If they're not catching casual LLM wording, how are they to be counted on to make sure the science behind the paper is good and valid?

[-] JoBo@feddit.uk 3 points 7 months ago

They do not include the peer reviewers in their list of people who missed it. Which means that either the peer reviewers did pick it up and for some reason it didn't get addressed (unlikely) or this was a straight up pay-to-play and whoever runs that particular bit of the racket for Elsevier fucked up.

[-] Hobbes_Dent@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

…was inadvertently outsourced on Fiverr… and people would shit but half the world seems ok with this shit.

Edit: I learned how to spell Fiverr today.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago

so they just hired a shadow writer. And the shadow writer used chat GPT.

because that makes the excuse valid, right?

[-] fossilesque@mander.xyz 18 points 7 months ago

My man, it's literally a ChatGPT reply window. It's a joke! :)

[-] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 3 points 7 months ago

It wasn't the authors. Well, not the authors of the paper. It was the author of the publisher's introduction to the paper.

[-] JoBo@feddit.uk 1 points 7 months ago

The publishers do not write any part of the paper.

[-] Hobbes_Dent@lemmy.world 31 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I’m beginning to understand that the trick to getting away with using AI when you’re not supposed to is simply proofreading.

I don’t condone it whatsoever, I’m just postulating on how many lawyers for example we don’t read about that just double-checked the citations it spat out before submitting and pruned the shit.

[-] Car@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I’m beginning to understand that the trick to getting away with using AI… is simply proofreading.

I don’t condone it whatsoever

I don’t condone proofreading either. Proofreading is basically work and should be outsourced to another AI, saving you the trouble.

[-] RustyShackleford@literature.cafe 27 points 7 months ago
[-] Krauerking@lemy.lol 6 points 7 months ago

Man all this needs is:

"As an AI model it would be wrong for me to make statements on the use of AI models, and I can not help you with this apology, but you could try a statement like:"

And you will know how much Elsevier actually cares about this.

this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2024
221 points (96.2% liked)

Science Memes

11068 readers
2110 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS