Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 89
3/15/2024, 9:42:30 PM
X
In reply to:
Linas
@linasvepstas
·
570d
@DeryaTR_ @GaryMarcus Here's one from this thread. I'll try to find the other one I saw this morning.
Nope.
@throwawall
·
571d
@GaryMarcus One more for your collection.
Derya Unutmaz, MD
@DeryaTR_
·
570d
@linasvepstas @GaryMarcus Yes, but LLM-generated content does not change the experimental results. Can you point out specific examples that are erroneous? Or fraudulent scientific data due the use of LLMs?
Linas
@linasvepstas
·
570d
@DeryaTR_ @GaryMarcus The posted examples of LLM-generated content were from materials science and chemistry articles, published by Elsevier. One had all-Chinese authors, the other all-Islamic authors.
Derya Unutmaz, MD
@DeryaTR_
·
571d
@GaryMarcus This is not a major issue in STEM research, as you need to perform actual experiments and generate meaningful data to publish; LLMs can’t do the experiments. However, this could be problematic in social sciences.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
571d
Mayday.

The sudden pollution of science with LLM-generated content, known to yield plausible-sounding but sometimes difficult to detect errors (“hallucinations”) is serious, and its impact will be lasting.

Please share this short essay (link below) with scientists and with…

The conversation appears to be a discussion about the impact of language model-generated content on scientific research and publication integrity. The tone is informative and seeks to provide clarification and resources related to the topic. The participants are exchanging views and information on the potential issues arising from the use of language models in scientific writing. The image from the essay uses strong language to emphasize the concern about the quality of scientific content being compromised by language models.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement aims to inform and does not appear to cause harm. [+1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects privacy and dignity, focusing on the issue rather than personal attacks. [+1]
  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 exchange promotes understanding of the issue at hand. [+1]
  4. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The participants are using their influence to discuss the potential impact on society. [+1]
  5. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The conversation upholds the principles of free speech responsibly. [+1]