I recently used ChatGPT to rewrite some sections of a paper. It helped me speed up the more technical sections, as repetition is something hard to avoid when English is not your first language (at least for me).
I was happy to use it, but then I realized that it might diminish my credibility when people read that AI was used in the publication. Am I overthinking it?
What do you guys think?
Bruna Carvalho Bruna, You’re not overthinking it? Please ignore me and ignore colleagues who use it too. You’re responsibility is to check the accuracy of everything you publish. And be conversant with the risks of AI. And know today’s risks will change as our ideas and understanding of AI evolve. The latter is important. Many people admit the AI code/system is too complex to understand. We know the parts, not so much the whole.
I use it to check continuity & comprehension of my writing, translate my language into others. But I don’t assume ChatGPT will know if my expressions are understood the same in other cultures who use different sentence structures. I like it for search, literature reviews and composing letters and mail.
However, ChatGPT can easily produce reasonable but incorrect responses (AI “hallucinations”). Also, the current model (ChatGPT-3) is trained on data up to October 2021. This means that it has no clue about recent events. (N.B - we’re up vers 4). Its also capable of assuming article ownership thats not true.
I’m quoting the next part from “Animate-Your-Science”
“A number of scientific journals, including Science, have already banned the use of AI-generated text within scientific articles. Springer-Nature, expressed concern, laying down two rules to govern the use of AI in assisting with manuscript preparation, stating:
ChatGPT, and others, will NOT be accepted as a credited author on a research paper.
Researchers must disclose the use of such tools in the methods or acknowledgements sections.
You are definitely not overthinking it, since most people don't know how useful AI tools can be in scientific research. Most people in academia have harsh rules and are too critical and judgemental. Your fear is very valid, but still I think you should go on with it. This prejudice comes from the work of researchers with little to no understanding of AI, creating papers that include false information with the help of ChatGPT. If we don't use it and spread awareness about how useful it can be in scientific research, this stigma will continue. Banning the usage of AI (or ChatGPT) is not going to prevent people from using it, they will just not acknowledge that they used it. It is also a temporary solution, knowing that the usage of these tools are going to be inevitable in the next 5 to 10 years.
Instead of banning the use of AI, there should be more education, workshops, seminars etc. about the right and ethical way of using this tool. We need to be careful about it, but do not disregard it completely. Look at how ANU approaches this topic : https://teaching.weblogs.anu.edu.au/files/2023/02/Chat_GPT_FAQ-1.pdf
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Atmospheric Sciences
- Atmosphere