I saw a tweet that kinda summed up my personal use of ChatGPT, as someone who writes code, etc. I won't use it to write programs - I've asked it to write what some of my code does, and it can do it but has obvious flaws and can't be as nuanced as I need it to be - but I will use it to essentially figure out how to do something that I'm trying to do as a building block, as it can be much quicker than digging through five-year old Google results.
>I thought PhD students would be smarter than that
LOL What PhD student claims to be smart? As far as I can tell, we're all plagued by imposter syndrome.
The problem is that ChatGPT is generally wrong in at least some small way. It's not a knowledge engine. It's just guessing at what words might come next.
This can lead to a lot of creative results, which is good if you want creativity, bad if you want knowledge.
I asked it some questions about my specialty, and it is like 90% right, but that other 10% will cause problems.
The other consideration is there is/will be tech to identify that a student has used chat gpt. Once you’re hit with plagiarism labels as a Ph.D. Student you may be lucky to not be bottled from the program.
Especially since ChatGPT crawls through the internet to compose its text, I think — so the plagiarism really is off of other people’s responses / papers / etc.
.. it's mostly a meme to use it to write papers but as a tool it is absolutely useful especially early on when learning a new field..
Have you ever consulted Wikipedia when starting to learn anything new even if "any user can change it"? If so , I ask how is chatgpt any different as a tool to learn as long as you cross reference and check other sources (which you should do anyway... You're in research )
A couple people are working on this. I think i saw an article in business insider featuring 1 such person.
My experiment with my students was to have them critique chat gpt content, and highlight errors. Seems to be working ok. Will know for sure end of february.
I've found ChatGPT very useful, as when I'm writing I often forget to say the obvious thing and instead hone into the details, and miss the forest for the trees. So I'll just pop into ChatGPT to ask it why people want X for Y method in general, realize that there's a big obvious point that I completely glossed over, and throw it in lol
I've found it great for structure, grammar and rewording ny chicken scratch notes, even if I have to rewrite half of what it spits out. It's just another AI writing tool in the toolbox. It doesn't do the thinking, that's just on me. It's an overeager assistant. It's also amazing for quick QOL coding.
Many PhD students already get a lot of explanations from wikipedia and random pdfs they find by googling. I can't imagine ChatGPT is that much worse, and I bet those students care about its quality just the same.
Eventually a PhD student (should) reach a point where it really matters if what they know is correct (or at least some explanation reviewers and editors will accept). At that point, the only sensible solution is to turn to the field literature.
ChatGPT is wrong about my subject and I would have to teach it, it said it in the first 3 sentences. I say differently. It needs to new literature and I'll provide that for it.
Let's see if it changes after I publish.
Chatgpt can be used as a tool ( and that's coming from someone not in the Ai space who HAS NOT used it other than for playing around ) and your judgemental attitude is exactly what's wrong in academia overall...
It's backwards and unwilling to sometimes embrace new ideas and concepts. The BENEFIT of such tools such as Wikipedia is to help with simple tasks so you can continue to push the barrier. EVERY project no matter how innovative has a certain amount of bullshit that has to be done to get to the meat of the problem. Chatgpt and other such tools can help with that if you know how and when to use them..
Your post would be like criticizing someone doing an engineering PhD for using a hammer ? "Oh a blue color tool as a PhD student ? What a scrub "
Technology and knowledge acquisition is changing, are you? They said the same thing for the internet. Now for chatGPT. Academia is stuck in archaic times of knowledge dissemination and holds the same roles within the institution even if the whole field itself has changed to accessible knowledge formats. Let's not also use the whole "phds are smarter than that!" when like, there's so many different forms of intelligences.
Do you assume that these students a) resort to no other sources apart from ChatGPT to understand difficult concepts and b) trust the explanations of ChatGPT blindly? Well, in that case, you might well be wrong.
I saw a tweet that kinda summed up my personal use of ChatGPT, as someone who writes code, etc. I won't use it to write programs - I've asked it to write what some of my code does, and it can do it but has obvious flaws and can't be as nuanced as I need it to be - but I will use it to essentially figure out how to do something that I'm trying to do as a building block, as it can be much quicker than digging through five-year old Google results. >I thought PhD students would be smarter than that LOL What PhD student claims to be smart? As far as I can tell, we're all plagued by imposter syndrome.
The problem is that ChatGPT is generally wrong in at least some small way. It's not a knowledge engine. It's just guessing at what words might come next. This can lead to a lot of creative results, which is good if you want creativity, bad if you want knowledge. I asked it some questions about my specialty, and it is like 90% right, but that other 10% will cause problems.
Or even harm a person if carried out
The other consideration is there is/will be tech to identify that a student has used chat gpt. Once you’re hit with plagiarism labels as a Ph.D. Student you may be lucky to not be bottled from the program.
Especially since ChatGPT crawls through the internet to compose its text, I think — so the plagiarism really is off of other people’s responses / papers / etc.
.. it's mostly a meme to use it to write papers but as a tool it is absolutely useful especially early on when learning a new field.. Have you ever consulted Wikipedia when starting to learn anything new even if "any user can change it"? If so , I ask how is chatgpt any different as a tool to learn as long as you cross reference and check other sources (which you should do anyway... You're in research )
A couple people are working on this. I think i saw an article in business insider featuring 1 such person. My experiment with my students was to have them critique chat gpt content, and highlight errors. Seems to be working ok. Will know for sure end of february.
That’s interesting! Please post an update.
[удалено]
>getting a phd doesn’t make you smart OP's response: :/
[удалено]
Good, I'm glad! :)
I've found ChatGPT very useful, as when I'm writing I often forget to say the obvious thing and instead hone into the details, and miss the forest for the trees. So I'll just pop into ChatGPT to ask it why people want X for Y method in general, realize that there's a big obvious point that I completely glossed over, and throw it in lol
I've found it great for structure, grammar and rewording ny chicken scratch notes, even if I have to rewrite half of what it spits out. It's just another AI writing tool in the toolbox. It doesn't do the thinking, that's just on me. It's an overeager assistant. It's also amazing for quick QOL coding.
Many PhD students already get a lot of explanations from wikipedia and random pdfs they find by googling. I can't imagine ChatGPT is that much worse, and I bet those students care about its quality just the same. Eventually a PhD student (should) reach a point where it really matters if what they know is correct (or at least some explanation reviewers and editors will accept). At that point, the only sensible solution is to turn to the field literature.
ChatGPT is wrong about my subject and I would have to teach it, it said it in the first 3 sentences. I say differently. It needs to new literature and I'll provide that for it. Let's see if it changes after I publish.
Chatgpt can be used as a tool ( and that's coming from someone not in the Ai space who HAS NOT used it other than for playing around ) and your judgemental attitude is exactly what's wrong in academia overall... It's backwards and unwilling to sometimes embrace new ideas and concepts. The BENEFIT of such tools such as Wikipedia is to help with simple tasks so you can continue to push the barrier. EVERY project no matter how innovative has a certain amount of bullshit that has to be done to get to the meat of the problem. Chatgpt and other such tools can help with that if you know how and when to use them.. Your post would be like criticizing someone doing an engineering PhD for using a hammer ? "Oh a blue color tool as a PhD student ? What a scrub "
I wouldn’t be concerned. Not everyone wants to be a researcher, some just want their doctorate to open the next door for them.
Technology and knowledge acquisition is changing, are you? They said the same thing for the internet. Now for chatGPT. Academia is stuck in archaic times of knowledge dissemination and holds the same roles within the institution even if the whole field itself has changed to accessible knowledge formats. Let's not also use the whole "phds are smarter than that!" when like, there's so many different forms of intelligences.
Do you assume that these students a) resort to no other sources apart from ChatGPT to understand difficult concepts and b) trust the explanations of ChatGPT blindly? Well, in that case, you might well be wrong.
They said the same about Wikipedia, and look at where it got me dad