• PoisonedPrisonPanda@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I dont need it to be beyond that? It does what I told it. And if I am creative enough to get my preferred output its great. I have still to decide if Ill use it.

    Its a tool which can be used by people and helps with work.

    I think it’s an important part of the process of doing science, no matter which field. And one gets better at it with training

    Sorry but this expression is probably a similar one when paper writting shifted to digital only format or when the typewriter was introduced.

    Boomer tell me the same with printed paper. “oNlY whEn ItS PriNtED yOu cAn rEaD pRoberly”

    Thats bullshit its just fear of the something new and convenience of routine.

    Nothing personal against you. I welcome any tool that helps me.

    • bane_killgrind
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      So I’m not sure it’s helping you.

      You would refrain from doing the work of organizing the concept in your head into a clearly communicable explanation of the concept.

      • PoisonedPrisonPanda@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think of it as in another anology.

        Compare a screwdriver with a power tool.

        Does the convenient solution hinder you from building your house simply because you cant “feel” the strength of the wood while turning the screw in?

        i doubt.

        The things you mentioned are coming into play when people think of AI as a god mode. As a user you are solely responsible for how to use a tool. If the user overestimates the power of the tool or use it for the wrong things. Its the users fault.

        The scientist is still a scientist. Which is the author of the paper. Not gpt because it writes filler text or puts the scientists thoughts into sentences.

        The context is still at the scientists plate. If the scientist does a poorly job at reviewing the gpts output. Gpt cant be faulted.

        • bane_killgrind
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          A research paper is not bulk work like a house. It’s more like a watch, and a watchmaker using a screw gun is daft.

          • PoisonedPrisonPanda@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Thats another point. Fair enough.

            But still I dont think that science will stall just because of chatgpt.

            Journalism? Will for sure. But scientific publications have a systemic problem (like publisher-polism, pubscores etc) And outsourcing writing work to chargpt is - in my opinion - non of them.

            • bane_killgrind
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sure, but using bad tools to do things is going to get you worse results that using the right tools. If we define worse as “less volume” then sure GPT is fine.