Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 89
3/15/2024, 7:05:10 PM
X
In reply to:
Remus
@remusrisnov
·
571d
@GaryMarcus Well that ironically be a good thing, not the false information in papers but the infallibility of peer review. I see your point, scientific papers shouldn’t be written with genAI.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
571d
@remusrisnov LLMs may well break the peer review process. https://garymarcus.substack.com/…
Remus
@remusrisnov
·
571d
@GaryMarcus How would the apparatus of science grind down to a halt?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
571d
E/Accs, Do you understand that if the apparatus of science grinds down because the stuff you advocated backfires, you will actually have 𝘴𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 science?

The statement expresses concern about the integrity of the peer review process in scientific publications due to the potential influence of AI-generated content. The tone is serious and the intent is to highlight a perceived problem in the scientific community.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not intend to harm but to raise awareness of an issue. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement lacks a direct promotion of understanding, empathy, or compassion, but it does not violate this principle.
  3. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement is part of a constructive dialogue about the potential negative impacts of AI on science. [+1]
  4. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement aims to use influence to better society by maintaining the integrity of scientific review processes. [+1]