Post #1437341

2025-02-18 09:47 UTC

A while ago I was talking to a researcher and he was like “a few years ago through field research I found out that __ and wrote about it, it was such an exciting find” and then added “and it’s amazing how smart ChatGPT is, recently I asked it the same thing, and it came to the same conclusion as I did in my research!” My man, ChatGPT didn’t come to the same conclusion you did and it isn’t smart. It stole words from your article and didn’t give you credit. That’s not amazing, that’s plagiarism.

Replies (14)

@fossheim@front-end.social 2025-02-18 09:49

the world is doomed :elmo_fire:

Open ##2907427
@fionasboots@tech.lgbt 2025-02-18 10:11

@fossheim@front-end.social like a lot of technology, many people don’t understand it in the slightest. I think things are often perceived as miraculous because limited exposure often shows only the good points. Most engineering endeavours, particularly extremely complex ones, have quite marked limitations due to basic laws of physics, chemistry, mechanics etc. It’s like the swan 🦢 metaphor - you see a graceful thing gliding over the water but if you look underneath there’s legs frantically paddling. Same with a lot of IT: what you see on the screen is amazing but to get that you have a lot of simple, repetitive, code being run at frantic speeds. AI is the epitome of this accept that the above-water “grace” requires thousands of swan legs. It’s not efficient and it’s not pretty. Humans on the other hand, can be vastly more efficient and get better results.

Open ##2907439
@meercat0@mastodon.social 2025-02-18 10:35

@fossheim@front-end.social what I wonder in these cases is that why it is not obvious to the people. Of course it is plagiarism

Open ##2907440
@androcat@toot.cat 2025-02-18 10:39

@fossheim@front-end.social It's incredible how someone can be in science and not understand the first little bit about source critique...

Open ##2907441
@gdupont@framapiaf.org 2025-02-18 11:18

@fossheim@front-end.social yet another case of people seeing intelligence where there is none, just access to lots of data... a kind of pareidolia for intelligence

Open ##2907442
@mo7emmed@social.vivaldi.net 2025-02-18 12:39

@fossheim@front-end.social Science has to be more accessible, expanding beyond the traditional limits of preserving copyrights.

Open ##2907447
@PalmAndNeedle@norden.social 2025-02-18 12:58

@fossheim@front-end.social it is always fascinating to me how stupid smart people can be

Open ##2907448
@foaylward@genomic.social 2025-02-18 13:17

@fossheim@front-end.social i noticed the same thing when I asked it questions about my niche field. The answers were worded curiously similar to my own writing style.

Open ##2907449
@simon@mastodon.star-one.org.uk 2025-02-18 13:32

@fossheim@front-end.social That would actually be funny if it wasn’t so depressing

Open ##2907450
@chantaryu2@pataterie.ca 2025-02-18 14:44

@fossheim@front-end.social it's scary that this person thinks ChatGPT is smart.

Open ##2907451
@jaredwhite@indieweb.social 2025-02-18 15:49

@fossheim@front-end.social I believe I recall there being a study a while back that showed that the people who are most enthusiastic about this technology are the ones who least understand how it works. Once you've popped the hood, you find out there is no magic. It's just a zillion Internet-scraped data points in a trenchcoat.

Open ##2907452
@dgoldsmith@mastodon.social 2025-02-18 16:32

@fossheim@front-end.social Chatbots are still Eliza; they've just gotten better at fooling people.

Open ##2907455
@sinvega@mas.to 2025-02-18 17:37

@fossheim@front-end.social I can't believe I put 27 in the bingo machine and it threw out 27 as well! Incredible machine, clearly as intelligent as me

Open ##2907459
@Virginicus@universeodon.com 2025-02-18 19:37

@fossheim@front-end.social That happened to me, too. The LLM was busted when it repeated an obscure pun that I sneaked into the technical report, just to see if I could get away with it

Open ##2907460