Embed Notice

HTML Code

<blockquote style="position: relative; padding-left: 55px;"><section><a href="https://mastodon.social/users/eliocamp/statuses/111528792412944144">Elio Campitelli (eliocamp@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 08-Dec-2023 21:47:34 JST</a><a href="https://mastodon.social/@eliocamp" title="eliocamp@mastodon.social"><img src="https://gnusocial.jp/avatar/87620-48-20230112181047.webp" width="48" height="48" alt="Elio Campitelli" style="position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0;">Elio Campitelli</a></section><article><p>There's not enough "fuck you"s in the world to react to this shit. <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/LLMs" rel="tag">#LLMs</a> should be tools used in the service of people; what in the world is this proposal to make people work for LLMs?!</p><p>Any and all changes to scientific publishing needs to be for so that other **people** can access them and understand them. </p><p>And the single most important change would be for Nature and other publishers not to charge 29.99 USD for a shitty 4-paragraph essay that they didn't pay for themselves. </p><p><a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/AcademicChatter" rel="tag">#AcademicChatter</a></p></article><footer><a rel="bookmark" href="https://gnusocial.jp/conversation/2428974#notice-4802134">In conversation</a><time datetime="2023-12-08T21:47:34+09:00" title="Friday, 08-Dec-2023 21:47:34 JST">about a year ago</time> <span>from <span><a href="https://mastodon.social/@eliocamp/111528792412944144" rel="external" title="Sent from mastodon.social via ActivityPub">mastodon.social</a></span></span><a href="https://mastodon.social/@eliocamp/111528792412944144">permalink</a><h4>Attachments</h4><ol><li><label><a rel="external" href="https://gnusocial.jp/attachment/1937480">Adjust the format of papers to improve description by AIThe chatbot ChatGPT and other tools based on large language models (LLMs) can make scientific research more efficient, but they can also introduce mistakes when they describe scientific work (Nature 622, 234–236; 2023). I suggest that small changes to the format of scientific papers could improve the training of LLMs.Describing the research method rather than citing a reference to it, for example, would enable the LLM to summarize methods accurately. Writing in the third person would identify individuals more clearly. This would require a significant shift in conventional scientific writing style, but LLMs do not recognize who ‘we’ are.The use of in-line citations by authors would improve LLM training by reducing the chance of a disconnect between a statement and its supporting reference. These should use just the DOI, without the journal title, volume and page numbers. The DOI makes it easier to verify that a reference is genuine (T. Day Prof. Geogr. https://doi.org/k5f6; 2023).Providing papers with an extended summary written in the third person and in a journalistic style could also improve AI-produced literature reviews. This summary would be more effective than a conventional abstract at highlighting the significance of the work. It would also enhance readability for both machines and humans, helping to boost societal awareness of scientific research.</a></label><br><a href="https://files.mastodon.social/media_attachments/files/111/528/792/204/987/519/original/7055aae0bc00fdfa.png" rel="external">https://files.mastodon.social/media_attachments/files/111/528/792/204/987/519/original/7055aae0bc00fdfa.png</a></li></ol></footer></blockquote>

Corresponding Notice

Embed this notice
Elio Campitelli (eliocamp@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 08-Dec-2023 21:47:34 JST Elio Campitelli
There's not enough "fuck you"s in the world to react to this shit. #LLMs should be tools used in the service of people; what in the world is this proposal to make people work for LLMs?!
Any and all changes to scientific publishing needs to be for so that other **people** can access them and understand them.
And the single most important change would be for Nature and other publishers not to charge 29.99 USD for a shitty 4-paragraph essay that they didn't pay for themselves.
#AcademicChatter
In conversationabout a year ago from mastodon.socialpermalink
Attachments
1. Adjust the format of papers to improve description by AI The chatbot ChatGPT and other tools based on large language models (LLMs) can make scientific research more efficient, but they can also introduce mistakes when they describe scientific work (Nature 622, 234–236; 2023). I suggest that small changes to the format of scientific papers could improve the training of LLMs. Describing the research method rather than citing a reference to it, for example, would enable the LLM to summarize methods accurately. Writing in the third person would identify individuals more clearly. This would require a significant shift in conventional scientific writing style, but LLMs do not recognize who ‘we’ are. The use of in-line citations by authors would improve LLM training by reducing the chance of a disconnect between a statement and its supporting reference. These should use just the DOI, without the journal title, volume and page numbers. The DOI makes it easier to verify that a reference is genuine (T. Day Prof. Geogr. https://doi.org/k5f6; 2023). Providing papers with an extended summary written in the third person and in a journalistic style could also improve AI-produced literature reviews. This summary would be more effective than a conventional abstract at highlighting the significance of the work. It would also enhance readability for both machines and humans, helping to boost societal awareness of scientific research.
  https://files.mastodon.social/media_attachments/files/111/528/792/204/987/519/original/7055aae0bc00fdfa.png

Public

Embed Notice

HTML Code

Corresponding Notice