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 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

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.

	▲	2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]