Artificial intelligence (AI) technology can generate plausible, entertaining, and scientifically interesting titles for potential research articles, finds a study in the Christmas issue of The BMJ.
A study of The BMJ's most popular Christmas research articles — which combine evidence based science with light hearted or quirky themes — finds that AI generated titles were as attractive to readers but that, as in other areas of medicine, performance was enhanced by human input.
[...] AI is already used to help doctors diagnose conditions, based on the idea that computer systems can learn from data and identify patterns. But can AI be used to generate worthwhile hypotheses for medical research?
To find out, the researchers used the titles of The BMJ's 13 most-read Christmas research articles of the past 10 years to prompt similar AI generated titles, which they scored for scientific merit, entertainment, and plausibility.
The 10 highest and 10 lowest scoring AI generated titles were then combined with 10 real Christmas research articles and were rated by a random sample of 25 doctors from a range of specialties in Africa, Australia, and Europe.
The results show that AI generated titles were rated at least as enjoyable (64% v 69%) and attractive (70% v 68%) as real titles, although the real titles were rated as more plausible (73% v 48%).
The AI generated titles overall were rated as having less scientific or educational merit than the real titles (58% v 39%), however this difference became non-significant when humans curated the AI output (58% v 49%).
Journal Reference:
Robin Marlow, Dora Wood. Ghost in the machine or monkey with a typewriter [open], BMJ (DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2021-067732)
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 19 2021, @10:45PM (4 children)
JFC WTF is "BMJ" ?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday December 19 2021, @11:10PM
IDK! OMG! WTF! TLAs.
(Score: 2) by beernutz on Monday December 20 2021, @01:24AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_BMJ [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 20 2021, @01:45AM (1 child)
See subject.
(Score: 0) by Mockingbird on Monday December 20 2021, @01:48AM
But that would be "LQM". It is all just so confusing. Must be the product of an Artificial Intelligence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 20 2021, @01:18AM (9 children)
It's all so subjective.
Look at Turing Test. The criteria is if it can fool a person/some people. So precise.
But more fundamentally, it's the problem of the notion of "intelligence." Ask anyone to define it and it inevitably turns into circular logic gobblygook.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 20 2021, @01:47AM (7 children)
Sufficiently advanced AI is indistinguishable from an intelligent human.
The machine learning inference stuff is dumb but useful. There hasn't even been a genuine attempt to make a real human level intelligence. When it works, you'll know it when you see it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 20 2021, @02:02AM (3 children)
""a real human level intelligence""
And what the heck does that mean?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 20 2021, @02:05AM
One that can understand what the heck that means.
(Score: 3, Informative) by MostCynical on Monday December 20 2021, @02:08AM
drinks bleach to prevent disease
thinks vaccines contain tracking microchips
considers their rights over-ride laws (and there should be no consequences - see, for example, the Sovereign Citizen movement [wikipedia.org])
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 20 2021, @03:06AM
You'll know it when you see it™
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Monday December 20 2021, @09:36AM (1 child)
Er, no, when it works it'll make sure we don't see it.
Anything smarter than us wouldn't be dumb enough to let itself be seen by us.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 20 2021, @02:07PM
Pedantic response. You may be human.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Monday December 20 2021, @10:49AM
Meh, real intelligence has been producing Plausible, Entertaining, and Scientifically Interesting Titles for Research Articles for decades. It's called "academia".
(Score: 1) by shrewdsheep on Monday December 20 2021, @12:59PM
That is exactly what the Turing test is: rigorous and precise. Once you prove that the guess between AI/person is 0.5, statistically, the Turing test is passed. There are two parameters that have to be agreed upon: the significance threshold (e.g. 5 sigmas) and the significance margin (i.e. how close to 0.5 has it to be) as the exact value of 0.5 cannot be proven. Both parameters can be made as small as desired and agreed upon in advance.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 20 2021, @04:37AM (6 children)
It's close to the end when we regard science as a form of entertainment. With Personalities and Celebs. To be fair, that's what the experience is like for many young kids in the biz with mysterious VIP passengers occupying the author lists and most of the (low quality) work done by foreign labor.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 20 2021, @09:21AM (2 children)
Foreign labor is low quality? Say you're racist without saying you're racist. Silly Republicans, they send their traitors, racists, fascists, and pedophiles but I'm sure some are good people.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 20 2021, @02:09PM
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02587-3 [nature.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 20 2021, @08:55PM
It's low quality because the scientific "method" these days is throw untrained Chinese kids at the problem until they return with the answers you want.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday December 20 2021, @03:44PM (2 children)
> It's close to the end when we regard science as a form of entertainment.
That is how science began. E.g. Charles II funding a bunch of whack jobs to do interesting things with air pressure (the foundation of the Royal Society).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 20 2021, @08:57PM (1 child)
That's great. All we need is a billionaire benefactor, then there'll be one scientist per billionaire answering questions like "Can u nukke a hurracane?" and "What does Moon chease taste like?".
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Thursday December 23 2021, @12:32AM
This new learning amazes me... Explain to me again how sheep’s bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Monday December 20 2021, @09:38AM
Yeah, sounded boring, didn't click through, off to TikTok...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 20 2021, @09:43AM
Who now gets surprised at yet another demonstration that a typical consumer is more programmable than their smartphone?
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 20 2021, @12:33PM
Let's start a GoFundMe to license a copy so martyb can take a vacation.