Gregory's Server@ct_bergstrom Oh wow, the scholarly papers already a majority of those cited: "Roughly two-thirds of the retrieved papers were found to have been produced, at least in part, through undisclosed, potentially deceptive use of GPT. The majority (57%) of these questionable papers dealt with policy-relevant subjects (i.e., environment, health, computing), susceptible to influence operations. Most were available in several copies on different domains (e.g., social media, archives, and repositories)"
|
3 comments
@Blob_Calder @cobalt @ct_bergstrom Well indeed… The reason why we do what we do is the real problem. It’s not only our endeavour to describe and understand our world, as scientists do, but the competitive relations we’ve created to sustain ourselves in relation to doing so…  @cobalt @ct_bergstrom I note "A sample of scientific papers with signs of GPT-use found on Google Scholar was retrieved". So a majority of the papers that were flagged as potentially fraudulent were in fact made using the text generator. That is already quite bad enough, since the number of fraudulent papers indexed by Google Scholar with just a couple of obvious tells of ChatGPT is apparently >100. |
@cobalt @ct_bergstrom
policy implications are concerning however there are 440 retracted COVID-19 papers on retraction watch. AI is just part of the problem.