Even in an instance where GenAI is technically correct it's still guessing, meaning that it's right for the wrong reasons & the result can't be replicated, a huge science no-no.
-
RE: https://social.coop/@natematias/116606979531755936
Even in an instance where GenAI is technically correct it's still guessing, meaning that it's right for the wrong reasons & the result can't be replicated, a huge science no-no.
Also, the proof of work thing I've mentioned before; the content of a scientific paper isn't longwinded for fun - it shows that whoever wrote is understands the topic well enough to work on it, stand by the research & explore it further.
If statistically generated it's literally worthless page filler.
-
RE: https://social.coop/@natematias/116606979531755936
Even in an instance where GenAI is technically correct it's still guessing, meaning that it's right for the wrong reasons & the result can't be replicated, a huge science no-no.
Also, the proof of work thing I've mentioned before; the content of a scientific paper isn't longwinded for fun - it shows that whoever wrote is understands the topic well enough to work on it, stand by the research & explore it further.
If statistically generated it's literally worthless page filler.
@jwcph (I am actually reviewing a journal submission right now and it is unnecessarily long-winded, with excess adverbs, but this is the exception rather than the rule.)
-
RE: https://social.coop/@natematias/116606979531755936
Even in an instance where GenAI is technically correct it's still guessing, meaning that it's right for the wrong reasons & the result can't be replicated, a huge science no-no.
Also, the proof of work thing I've mentioned before; the content of a scientific paper isn't longwinded for fun - it shows that whoever wrote is understands the topic well enough to work on it, stand by the research & explore it further.
If statistically generated it's literally worthless page filler.
"Even in an instance where GenAI is technically correct it's still guessing, meaning that it's right for the wrong reasons & the result can't be replicated, a huge science no-no."
-
@jwcph (I am actually reviewing a journal submission right now and it is unnecessarily long-winded, with excess adverbs, but this is the exception rather than the rule.)
@va2lam It can get to be too much - but even that author probably piles on with the verbiage to try & deliver substantial proof of work. It still has greater value than if the verbiage came out of a stochastic text extruder.
