|
| ▲ | floxy 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| >How much precedence is there for machines or tools getting an author credit in research? For a datum of one, the mathematician Doron Zeilberger give credit to his computer Shalosh B. Ekhad on select papers. https://medium.com/@miodragpetkovic_24196/the-computer-a-mys... https://sites.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/akherim/EkhadCredit... https://sites.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/pj.html |
| |
|
| ▲ | steveklabnik 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Not exactly the same thing, but I know of at least two professors that would try to list their cats as co-authors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._D._C._Willard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Knorozov |
| |
|
| ▲ | kuboble 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I have seem stuff like "you can use my program if you will make me a co-author". That usually comes up with some support usually. |
|
| ▲ | famouswaffles 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >How much precedence is there for machines or tools getting an author credit in research? Well what do you think ? Do the authors (or a single symbolic one) of pytorch or numpy or insert <very useful software> typically get credits on papers that utilize them heavily?
Well Clearly these prominent institutions thought GPT's contribution significant enough to warrant an Open AI credit. >Would we give an author credit to e.g. a chimpanzee if it happened to circle the right page of a text book while working with researchers, leading them to a eureka moment? Cool Story. Good thing that's not what happened so maybe we can do away with all these pointless non sequiturs yeah ? If you want to have a good faith argument, you're welcome to it, but if you're going to go on these nonsensical tangents, it's best we end this here. |
| |
| ▲ | nozzlegear 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Well what do you think ? Do the authors (or a single symbolic one) of pytorch or numpy or insert <very useful software> typically get credits on papers that utilize them heavily ? I don't know! That's why I asked. > Well Clearly these prominent institutions thought GPT's contribution significant enough to warrant an Open AI credit. Contribution is a fitting word, I think, and well chosen. I'm sure OpenAI's contribution was quite large, quite green and quite full of Benjamins. > Cool Story. Good thing that's not what happened so maybe we can do away with all these pointless non sequiturs yeah ? If you want to have a good faith argument, you're welcome to it, but if you're going to go on these nonsensical tangents, it's best we end this here. It was a genuine question. What's the difference between a chimpanzee and a computer? Neither are humans and neither should be credited as authors on a research paper, unless the institution receives a fat stack of cash I guess. But alas Jane Goodall wasn't exactly flush with money and sycophants in the way OpenAI currently is. | | |
| ▲ | famouswaffles 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | >I don't know! That's why I asked. If you don't read enough papers to immediately realize it is an extremely rare occurrence then what are you even doing? Why are you making comments like you have the slightest clue of what you're talking about? including insinuating the credit was what...the result of bribery? You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. You've decided to accuse prominent researchers of essentially academic fraud with no proof because you got butthurt about a credit. You think your opinion on what should and shouldn't get credited matters ? Okay I've wasted enough time talking to you. Good Day. | | |
| ▲ | nozzlegear 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Do I need to be credentialed to ask questions or point out the troubling trend of AI grift maxxers like yourself helping Sam Altman and his cronies further the myth of AGI by pretending a machine is a researcher deserving of a research credit? This is marketing, pure and simple. Close the simonw substack for a second and take an objective view of the situation. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | slopusila 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| it's called ethics and research integrity. not crediting GPT would be a form of misrepresentation |
| |
| ▲ | nozzlegear 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Would it? I think there's a difference between "the researchers used ChatGPT" and "one of the researchers literally is ChatGPT." The former is the truth, and the latter is the misrepresentation in my eyes. I have no problem with the former and agree that authors/researchers must note when they use AI in their research. | | |
| ▲ | slopusila 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | now you are debating exactly how GPT should be credited. idk, I'm sure the field will make up some guidance for this particular paper it seems the humans were stuck, and only AI thinking unblocked them | | |
| ▲ | nozzlegear 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > now you are debating exactly how GPT should be credited. idk, I'm sure the field will make up some guidance In your eyes maybe there's no difference. In my eyes, big difference. Tools are not people, let's not further the myth of AGI or the silly marketing trend of anthropomorphizing LLMs. | | |
|
|
|
