Here is a better idea: have some academic integrity and actually do the work instead of using incompetent machine learning to flood the industry with inaccurate trash papers whose only real impact is getting in the way of real research.
You can literally use tools to check grammar perfectly without using AI. What the LLM AI does is it predict what word comes next in a sequence, and if the AI is wrong as it often is then you’ve just attempted to publish a paper with halucinations wasting the time and effort of so many people because you’re greedy and lazy.
AI does better at checking for grammar and clarity of message. It’s just a fact. I’ve made comparisons myself using a grammar checker on an essay vs AI and AI corrected it and made it much better.
AI doesn’t do anything better than a human being. Human Beings are the training data, an AI that mimics it 98% is still less accurate than the humans. If you suck so much at writing papers then you’re just below average as a human being who writes papers and using tools will never remedy that without introspection and a desire to improve.
Proofreading involves more than just checking grammar, and AIs aren’t perfect. I would never put my name on something to get published publicly like this without reading it through at least once myself.
That’s not necessarily true. General-purpose 3rd party models (chatgpt, llama3-70b, etc) perform surprisingly good in very specific tasks. While training or finetuning your specialized model should indeed give you better results, the crazy amount of computational resources and specialized manpower needed to accomplish it makes it unfeasible and unpractical in many applications. If you can get away with an occational “as an AI model…”, you are better off using existing models.
This almost makes me think they’re trying to fully automate their publishing process. So, no editor in that case.
Editors are expensive.
If they really want to do it, they can just run a local language model trained to proofread stuff like this. Would be way better
This is exactly the line of thinking that lead to papers like this being generated.
I don’t think so. They are using AI from a 3rd party. If they train their own specialized version, things will be better.
Here is a better idea: have some academic integrity and actually do the work instead of using incompetent machine learning to flood the industry with inaccurate trash papers whose only real impact is getting in the way of real research.
There is nothing wrong with using AI to proofread a paper. It’s just a grammar checker but better.
You can literally use tools to check grammar perfectly without using AI. What the LLM AI does is it predict what word comes next in a sequence, and if the AI is wrong as it often is then you’ve just attempted to publish a paper with halucinations wasting the time and effort of so many people because you’re greedy and lazy.
AI does better at checking for grammar and clarity of message. It’s just a fact. I’ve made comparisons myself using a grammar checker on an essay vs AI and AI corrected it and made it much better.
AI doesn’t do anything better than a human being. Human Beings are the training data, an AI that mimics it 98% is still less accurate than the humans. If you suck so much at writing papers then you’re just below average as a human being who writes papers and using tools will never remedy that without introspection and a desire to improve.
Proofreading involves more than just checking grammar, and AIs aren’t perfect. I would never put my name on something to get published publicly like this without reading it through at least once myself.
I entirely agree. You should read through something you’ll publish.
That’s not necessarily true. General-purpose 3rd party models (chatgpt, llama3-70b, etc) perform surprisingly good in very specific tasks. While training or finetuning your specialized model should indeed give you better results, the crazy amount of computational resources and specialized manpower needed to accomplish it makes it unfeasible and unpractical in many applications. If you can get away with an occational “as an AI model…”, you are better off using existing models.