If generative AI tools generate inappropriate language, plagiarized content, biased content, errors, mistakes, incorrect references, or misleading content, and that output is included in scientific works, it is the responsibility of the author(s). 2/
@_onionesque Recently been seeing several job advertisements that mention the requirement to have published at Neurips/ICML/ICLR (main track) specifically.
@giffmana Its insane, these people deliberately choose the „no LLM usage for reviews“ track and then still fell for some pretty simple prompt injections that were all over twitter and Reddit. Careless really is the right word here.
@_xjdr literally every time I sit down to write the paper after running a zillion experiments I realize I missed some super obvious ablation that I never would've caught if I wasn't forced to organize my thoughts into coherent text for other humans to read
This is aging so well. We've reached the point where humans can make mind-drugs made out of bits that can (and will) hyper-optimize itself across time. Society will collapse if we poison our children. Stop this.
@BlackHC "...dass der Essay ein außergewöhnliches Maß an Inhaltsdichte aufweise..."
Also das spricht doch eher gegen die Verwendung von ChatGPT. Auch fraglich wie sie auf die "zu 45 Prozent KI generiert" Wahrscheinlichkeit kommen.
@StasBekman I wonder if there are more efficient ways of saving interesting things for later reading when you do not have time to do it the moment you find them.