Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 89
3/15/2024, 10:32:55 PM
X
In reply to:
Derya Unutmaz, MD
@DeryaTR_
·
570d
@linasvepstas @GaryMarcus @say_cem LLMs also offer potential way to cross check those flaws. As pointed out by @say_cem an LLM would have picked up this but human editor didn’t.
Linas
@linasvepstas
·
570d
@DeryaTR_ @GaryMarcus @say_cem Human nature is flawed. We have created political and social systems that attempt to limit the damage caused by those flaws. LLM's offer brand-new ways of making end-runs around those regulatory systems. Political and social systems need to adjust. But how?
Derya Unutmaz, MD
@DeryaTR_
·
570d
@GaryMarcus @linasvepstas @say_cem I am not pretending it’s fine. My point is that this has nothing to do with LLMs. Most papers are of poor quality, and science advances because of a minority of publications; this has always been the case.

So please stop blaming the LLM for the flaws in human nature.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
570d
@DeryaTR_ @linasvepstas @say_cem Sure. But given how atrociously lax the editing was by both the reviewers and the authors on the introduction, you can’t trust that the study or its discussion or analysis was carefully reviewed, nor that that is was written by humans.

Stop pretending like this is totally fine.
Derya Unutmaz, MD
@DeryaTR_
·
570d
@linasvepstas @say_cem @GaryMarcus Most of their journals mediocre at best. Also this is totally editors and proof readers fault not picking up on this. Also as i mentioned before introduction part of the paper is unimportant for the findings.
Linas
@linasvepstas
·
570d
@DeryaTR_ @say_cem @GaryMarcus Elsevier is a top-tier publisher. Maybe not quite as respected as Springer, but maybe #2 or #3 in respectability ranking. Here's another screenshot:

The statement is part of a conversation about the role of language models (LLMs) in identifying flaws in human editing processes. The tone is matter-of-fact and contributes to a discussion on the effectiveness of LLMs versus human editors in the context of scientific publications.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not intend to harm but rather to point out a discrepancy between expectations and reality. [+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 is not against these principles.
  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 use of LLMs in editing processes. [+1]