A whole new ballgame in cheating. Introducing ChatGPT

[Caracal]

I do wonder why you accept grammar checkers

Well, there is no real way to detect grammar checkers, especially since grammar check is now a basic function in MSWord.  And somehow they still get a lot of grammar wrong.

When I taught writing I actually had a little routine where we went through the different cues in Word ("You see that little red squiggly line..." etc.).  I told students to let the program help teach them grammar and syntax---it's helped me with mine.  After all, most grammar experts think that learning grammar in context is about the only way to do it.  The Word grammar-check is pretty good at doing this, and students still have to understand the rules because Word is not infallible and a bit anal-retentive.

And I think this is the way we can use AI.  They can be personal tutors if used correctly. These programs can actually help us learn stuff.

I actually think CHATGPT could be useful as an example of how not to write. When you're workshopping papers it can be hard to get students to see when a paper isn't making an argument, or isn't developing an argument. Students tend to focus on grammar and clarity issues and miss the big picture. CHATGPT produces clear readable prose that sounds like its going somewhere, but usually just restates the same thing without actually going anywhere.

[Kron3007]

I do wonder why you accept grammar checkers

Well, there is no real way to detect grammar checkers, especially since grammar check is now a basic function in MSWord.  And somehow they still get a lot of grammar wrong.

When I taught writing I actually had a little routine where we went through the different cues in Word ("You see that little red squiggly line..." etc.).  I told students to let the program help teach them grammar and syntax---it's helped me with mine.  After all, most grammar experts think that learning grammar in context is about the only way to do it.  The Word grammar-check is pretty good at doing this, and students still have to understand the rules because Word is not infallible and a bit anal-retentive.

And I think this is the way we can use AI.  They can be personal tutors if used correctly. These programs can actually help us learn stuff.

I actually think CHATGPT could be useful as an example of how not to write. When you're workshopping papers it can be hard to get students to see when a paper isn't making an argument, or isn't developing an argument. Students tend to focus on grammar and clarity issues and miss the big picture. CHATGPT produces clear readable prose that sounds like its going somewhere, but usually just restates the same thing without actually going anywhere.

Yes, I can see what you mean, but I find it does a reasonably good job of describing processes and providing overviews that can be useful for the type of writing I do.  For some fields/report/projects, this would be useful.

[Wahoo Redux]

Yes, I can see what you mean, but I find it does a reasonably good job of describing processes and providing overviews that can be useful for the type of writing I do.  For some fields/report/projects, this would be useful.

Nature: ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: many scientists disapprove
At least four articles credit the AI tool as a co-author, as publishers scramble to regulate its use.

ChatGPT is one of 12 authors on a preprint1 about using the tool for medical education, posted on the medical repository medRxiv in December last year.

The team behind the repository and its sister site, bioRxiv, are discussing whether it's appropriate to use and credit AI tools such as ChatGPT when writing studies, says co-founder Richard Sever, assistant director of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory press in New York. Conventions might change, he adds.

Get ready to relax everyone, the computers are taking over.

[Caracal]

Yes, I can see what you mean, but I find it does a reasonably good job of describing processes and providing overviews that can be useful for the type of writing I do.  For some fields/report/projects, this would be useful.

Nature: ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: many scientists disapprove
At least four articles credit the AI tool as a co-author, as publishers scramble to regulate its use.

ChatGPT is one of 12 authors on a preprint1 about using the tool for medical education, posted on the medical repository medRxiv in December last year.

The team behind the repository and its sister site, bioRxiv, are discussing whether it's appropriate to use and credit AI tools such as ChatGPT when writing studies, says co-founder Richard Sever, assistant director of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory press in New York. Conventions might change, he adds.

Get ready to relax everyone, the computers are taking over.

Relaxing would be a good idea...

[Caracal]

I do wonder why you accept grammar checkers

Well, there is no real way to detect grammar checkers, especially since grammar check is now a basic function in MSWord.  And somehow they still get a lot of grammar wrong.

When I taught writing I actually had a little routine where we went through the different cues in Word ("You see that little red squiggly line..." etc.).  I told students to let the program help teach them grammar and syntax---it's helped me with mine.  After all, most grammar experts think that learning grammar in context is about the only way to do it.  The Word grammar-check is pretty good at doing this, and students still have to understand the rules because Word is not infallible and a bit anal-retentive.

And I think this is the way we can use AI.  They can be personal tutors if used correctly. These programs can actually help us learn stuff.

I actually think CHATGPT could be useful as an example of how not to write. When you're workshopping papers it can be hard to get students to see when a paper isn't making an argument, or isn't developing an argument. Students tend to focus on grammar and clarity issues and miss the big picture. CHATGPT produces clear readable prose that sounds like its going somewhere, but usually just restates the same thing without actually going anywhere.

Yes, I can see what you mean, but I find it does a reasonably good job of describing processes and providing overviews that can be useful for the type of writing I do.  For some fields/report/projects, this would be useful.

Oh sure. I think a good rule of thumb is that if a google search would quickly produce something that a person could paraphrase and produce something acceptable from, CHATGPT will probably do an ok job. There is some writing that definitely falls in that category-but there's also a lot that doesn't.

[Kron3007]

Yes, I can see what you mean, but I find it does a reasonably good job of describing processes and providing overviews that can be useful for the type of writing I do.  For some fields/report/projects, this would be useful.

Nature: ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: many scientists disapprove
At least four articles credit the AI tool as a co-author, as publishers scramble to regulate its use.

ChatGPT is one of 12 authors on a preprint1 about using the tool for medical education, posted on the medical repository medRxiv in December last year.

The team behind the repository and its sister site, bioRxiv, are discussing whether it's appropriate to use and credit AI tools such as ChatGPT when writing studies, says co-founder Richard Sever, assistant director of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory press in New York. Conventions might change, he adds.

Get ready to relax everyone, the computers are taking over.

That's funny, but really just a PR stunt.

What I find interesting in that this is just one small step along a path we have been on for a while.  I use reference managers and have not filled out the reference section of my papers for years.  More intellectually impactful, we all use statistical software to outsource mathematics.  I have never actually done even a basic t-test by hand before (nor could I), let alone more advanced analyses.  Outsourcing our math to computers is fully accepted and universally done, with serious real world implications, but for some reason we have drawn a line at writing.

In respect to stats, we are so far down the rabbit hole that most people using the methods could not do it on their own, and many do not even understand what is being done in principle.  I have used statistical methods in which the computer can give different answers if it analyses the same data set twice (ie. k-means cluster analysis), showing the degree of faith we are putting in our electronic friends.  It is funny that we are so accepting of computers to drive some very critical parts of the research endeavor, but so concerned about this.  I suppose math has always been seen as a computer domain.     

[Wahoo Redux]

It is funny that we are so accepting of computers to drive some very critical parts of the research endeavor, but so concerned about this.

Science fiction is virtually always predicated upon the notion that science is dangerous.  Our robots turn against us; we run out of resources because we are too reproductive and so we have to eat our own corpses; toxic waste creates giant spiders; our space ships go too far out into space; the Morlocks live in the machine underground so they can prey upon the weak, technologically-void Eloi; H.A.L. has conflicting orders and turns psychotic; The Empire builds the Death Star, etc.  Alien invasion is only possible because the aliens have vastly superior war machines.

This fear ballooned after the invention of the atomic bomb and the Cold War, at least in science fiction.

And look how often parents flip out over the new gadgets their kids are obsessed with.  In my generation it was the boob tube and Rock'n'Roll (the first truly mechanized music).  Now days it is cell phones and video games.

Humans always fear new inventions and advancements in technologies.  I'm sure that the first cave person who invented the wheel had a lot of suspicion heaped upon hu by the tribe.

[Wahoo Redux]

seen on campus at UMD college park

[Parasaurolophus]

Science fiction is virtually always predicated upon the notion that science is dangerous.  Our robots turn against us; we run out of resources because we are too reproductive and so we have to eat our own corpses; toxic waste creates giant spiders; our space ships go too far out into space; the Morlocks live in the machine underground so they can prey upon the weak, technologically-void Eloi; H.A.L. has conflicting orders and turns psychotic; The Empire builds the Death Star, etc.  Alien invasion is only possible because the aliens have vastly superior war machines.

This fear ballooned after the invention of the atomic bomb and the Cold War, at least in science fiction.

Off-topic, but historically, I'm not sure that's right. Science fiction's origins are in the pulp genre called (at the time) "scientifiction" (ugh), and that was explicitly all about fascination with the marvels of technology, both actual and expected. (There was tons of conflict, of course, and strong elements of horror; but the genre wasn't about fear or horror of technology, as the advertising makes very clear. And it was weird, in ways that clearly influenced '70s scifi.) I can buy that there's a strong technophobic element in Cold War scifi, especially from the '60s and '70s (although again, the themes, plots, and devices owe so much to the scientifiction pulps that I'm not so sure). I don't think it's an accurate analysis of the '90s, '00s, and '10s, though.

[Wahoo Redux]

Science fiction is virtually always predicated upon the notion that science is dangerous.  Our robots turn against us; we run out of resources because we are too reproductive and so we have to eat our own corpses; toxic waste creates giant spiders; our space ships go too far out into space; the Morlocks live in the machine underground so they can prey upon the weak, technologically-void Eloi; H.A.L. has conflicting orders and turns psychotic; The Empire builds the Death Star, etc.  Alien invasion is only possible because the aliens have vastly superior war machines.

This fear ballooned after the invention of the atomic bomb and the Cold War, at least in science fiction.

Off-topic, but historically, I'm not sure that's right. Science fiction's origins are in the pulp genre called (at the time) "scientifiction" (ugh), and that was explicitly all about fascination with the marvels of technology, both actual and expected. (There was tons of conflict, of course, and strong elements of horror; but the genre wasn't about fear or horror of technology, as the advertising makes very clear. And it was weird, in ways that clearly influenced '70s scifi.) I can buy that there's a strong technophobic element in Cold War scifi, especially from the '60s and '70s (although again, the themes, plots, and devices owe so much to the scientifiction pulps that I'm not so sure). I don't think it's an accurate analysis of the '90s, '00s, and '10s, though.

Sci fi is not my subject (in fact, I only really like Arthur C Clarke), it's what I ended up teaching because they needed someone to teach it, and I disagree.

There is a tremendous link between horror and sci fi----in fact, sci fi is a subgenre of horror----but the big difference between supernatural horror / fantasy is the pseudo-science of sci fi.  If, as most that I am aware of do, we consider Frankenstein the first sci fi book, you have that horror/fear of science dynamic from the get-go.  I am very aware of the pulp-era and the "Golden Era" of sci fi.  These eras took Shelley's "mad scientist" and creation-of-science-gone-wrong and made them into the cliched tropes even little kids know.

At least the classics I am aware of----
Neuromancer
Ring World
Anything written by H.G. Wells
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep
Man in the High Castle
I Have No Mouth but I Must Scream stories
Killdozer
Much of H.P. Lovecraft as well as much of the following Cthulhu Mythos literature by other authors
Childhood's End or any of the 2001 series
I, Robot or The Martian Chronicles
ect.

Mind you, there are vast variations in nuance and theme and subgenre and cross-genre, from pseudo-fantasy to dystopia to hardboiled noir, and many different voices and ideas in sci fi.  But behind all of them to one degree or another is the "science" of sci fi and the problems with science and its discontents.

Now, maybe your an avid reader of sci fi, and I would be interested in what you have to say.  I am not an avid reader of sci fi, but I did a fair amount of background reading in the history and definition of sci fi.  Maybe we should have a dedicated thread to science fiction (I didn't even get into the films, many of which I have actually seen) so as not to derail this one.  Weird thing is, people never want to have actual discussions of their disciplines on here; mostly we want to discuss problems with academia.

[Wahoo Redux]

NBC News: A chatbot that lets you talk with Jesus and Hitler is the latest controversy in the AI gold rush

We are living science fiction.

And AI is one hot topic.

[Liquidambar]

Now, maybe your an avid reader of sci fi, and I would be interested in what you have to say.  I am not an avid reader of sci fi, but I did a fair amount of background reading in the history and definition of sci fi.  Maybe we should have a dedicated thread to science fiction (I didn't even get into the films, many of which I have actually seen) so as not to derail this one.  Weird thing is, people never want to have actual discussions of their disciplines on here; mostly we want to discuss problems with academia.

As an enthusiastic reader of sci-fi, I'd be interested in a sci-fi thread.  I disagree with your generalization about sci-fi (I think the reality is more nuanced), but I'll save that for a future thread.

[Wahoo Redux]

Now, maybe your an avid reader of sci fi, and I would be interested in what you have to say.  I am not an avid reader of sci fi, but I did a fair amount of background reading in the history and definition of sci fi.  Maybe we should have a dedicated thread to science fiction (I didn't even get into the films, many of which I have actually seen) so as not to derail this one.  Weird thing is, people never want to have actual discussions of their disciplines on here; mostly we want to discuss problems with academia.

As an enthusiastic reader of sci-fi, I'd be interested in a sci-fi thread.  I disagree with your generalization about sci-fi (I think the reality is more nuanced), but I'll save that for a future thread.

Well, I think I used the term "nuance" in my comments.  I think I said there is a breadth of sci fi themes and voices.  Certainly you cannot expect me to encompass all of sci fi in a comment on The Fora.  I would be interested in how my generalization does not stand.

We now have a thread on "General Discussion."  What are the nuances?

AI is sci fi realized, our potential and our fear of technology realized.

Cheers.

Cheers.

[MarathonRunner]

Now, maybe your an avid reader of sci fi, and I would be interested in what you have to say.  I am not an avid reader of sci fi, but I did a fair amount of background reading in the history and definition of sci fi.  Maybe we should have a dedicated thread to science fiction (I didn't even get into the films, many of which I have actually seen) so as not to derail this one.  Weird thing is, people never want to have actual discussions of their disciplines on here; mostly we want to discuss problems with academia.

As an enthusiastic reader of sci-fi, I'd be interested in a sci-fi thread.  I disagree with your generalization about sci-fi (I think the reality is more nuanced), but I'll save that for a future thread.

Agreed. I thoroughly enjoy sci-fi, but can't stand horror at all, not even Stephen King. But I enjoy so many sci-fi authors from Asimov to Modesitt Jr, and many, many others.

[Wahoo Redux]

Now, maybe your an avid reader of sci fi, and I would be interested in what you have to say.  I am not an avid reader of sci fi, but I did a fair amount of background reading in the history and definition of sci fi.  Maybe we should have a dedicated thread to science fiction (I didn't even get into the films, many of which I have actually seen) so as not to derail this one.  Weird thing is, people never want to have actual discussions of their disciplines on here; mostly we want to discuss problems with academia.

As an enthusiastic reader of sci-fi, I'd be interested in a sci-fi thread.  I disagree with your generalization about sci-fi (I think the reality is more nuanced), but I'll save that for a future thread.

Agreed. I thoroughly enjoy sci-fi, but can't stand horror at all, not even Stephen King. But I enjoy so many sci-fi authors from Asimov to Modesitt Jr, and many, many others.

We've got a thread over on General Discussion.