AI writing tools seem to be on everyone’s mind after the recent launch of ChatGPT.
Now, we’re hearing about the world’s biggest academic publisher coming forward and mentioning how the policies linked to such tools being used in scientific papers hold zero value. And hence, it would never be able to get credited to the likes of a real author.
The news was published this week with a special mention of ChatGPT making its way into scientific journals with zero value. But it did add how there was no harm in scientists making use of AI tools to assist with writing or researching on a particular topic. But this is provided of the fact that the authors involved are providing proper contribution information to the public, instead of disguising it.
The sudden emergence of such tools in today’s market is definitely alarming. ChatGPT is stated to be ripping people off of their own hard work and content for free, without providing them with any sort of financial contribution or credit.
Similarly, large language models have also been in the limelight as tools providing great assistance in journalism and publishing, adding ease to people’s lives. Such tools do vary by nature and the amount of contribution they provide but they’re certainly adding ease.
But experts in the field say giving the tool credit of an author is not only wrong but literally absurd. New reports have made professionals upset as they saw ChatGPT arising as an author for some examinations where the tool was used to add one sentence or a line. And when asked to justify the act, those in charge said a lot of intellectual assistance was taken through the tool.
Most of the reactions seen for such tools have been mixed as arguments against the software say such tools can never fulfill obligations having to do with authorship in scientific researchers. These responsibilities are one too many and nothing compares to the likes of it.
Let’s not forget how such tools are not free from error and many professors find that the final product just does not compare to the works of a human and hence can’t get the credit of a proper author.
Even if a proper broad consensus does arise on calling out the tool for the sake of authorship, there is little to no clarity about AI tools for writing a paper. And then there are the likes of plagiarism and ethical matters that come into play. Hence, some are even calling for a ban on this scientific work. What do you think?
Read next: Data From Freelancing Platform Indicate AI Demand is On the Rise
Now, we’re hearing about the world’s biggest academic publisher coming forward and mentioning how the policies linked to such tools being used in scientific papers hold zero value. And hence, it would never be able to get credited to the likes of a real author.
The news was published this week with a special mention of ChatGPT making its way into scientific journals with zero value. But it did add how there was no harm in scientists making use of AI tools to assist with writing or researching on a particular topic. But this is provided of the fact that the authors involved are providing proper contribution information to the public, instead of disguising it.
The sudden emergence of such tools in today’s market is definitely alarming. ChatGPT is stated to be ripping people off of their own hard work and content for free, without providing them with any sort of financial contribution or credit.
Similarly, large language models have also been in the limelight as tools providing great assistance in journalism and publishing, adding ease to people’s lives. Such tools do vary by nature and the amount of contribution they provide but they’re certainly adding ease.
But experts in the field say giving the tool credit of an author is not only wrong but literally absurd. New reports have made professionals upset as they saw ChatGPT arising as an author for some examinations where the tool was used to add one sentence or a line. And when asked to justify the act, those in charge said a lot of intellectual assistance was taken through the tool.
Most of the reactions seen for such tools have been mixed as arguments against the software say such tools can never fulfill obligations having to do with authorship in scientific researchers. These responsibilities are one too many and nothing compares to the likes of it.
Let’s not forget how such tools are not free from error and many professors find that the final product just does not compare to the works of a human and hence can’t get the credit of a proper author.
Even if a proper broad consensus does arise on calling out the tool for the sake of authorship, there is little to no clarity about AI tools for writing a paper. And then there are the likes of plagiarism and ethical matters that come into play. Hence, some are even calling for a ban on this scientific work. What do you think?
Read next: Data From Freelancing Platform Indicate AI Demand is On the Rise
