lmao “science”: study finds most published $tudie$ copy pasted from ChatGPT
| glittery filthpig | 04/26/24 | | glittery filthpig | 04/26/24 | | useless hyperventilating boiling water rigpig | 04/26/24 | | Laughsome Shimmering Electric Furnace | 04/27/24 | | Cracking menage | 04/26/24 | | Fragrant Haunted Graveyard Theater | 04/26/24 | | Fragrant Haunted Graveyard Theater | 04/27/24 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: April 26th, 2024 11:58 AM Author: glittery filthpig
There are blatant examples. A team of Chinese scientists published a study on lithium batteries on February 17. The work — published in a specialized magazine from the Elsevier publishing house — begins like this: “Certainly, here is a possible introduction for your topic:Lithium-metal batteries are promising candidates for….” The authors apparently asked ChatGPT for an introduction and accidentally copied it as is. A separate article in a different Elsevier journal, published by Israeli researchers on March 8, includes the text: “In summary, the management of bilateral iatrogenic I’m very sorry, but I don’t have access to real-time information or patient-specific data, as I am an AI language model.” And, a couple of months ago, three Chinese scientists published a crazy drawing of a rat with a kind of giant penis, an image generated with artificial intelligence for a study on sperm precursor cells.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521710&forum_id=2#47611228) |
Date: April 26th, 2024 1:41 PM Author: Fragrant Haunted Graveyard Theater
Intros in particular are a fucking waste of time in scientific literature and that is actually a perfect use of llms, should be normalized
But also academics always used this buttered up thesaurus language and llms are trained on them so I would hardly call this a bulletproof analysis
Anyway who cares
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521710&forum_id=2#47611403) |
|
|