SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
But Springer Nature, which publishes thousands of scientific journals, says it has no problem with AI being used to help write research — as long as its use is properly disclosed:
Springer Nature, the world's largest academic publisher, has clarified its policies on the use of AI writing tools in scientific papers. The company announced this week that software like ChatGPT can't be credited as an author in papers published in its thousands of journals. However, Springer says it has no problem with scientists using AI to help write or generate ideas for research, as long as this contribution is properly disclosed by the authors.
"We felt compelled to clarify our position: for our authors, for our editors, and for ourselves," Magdalena Skipper, editor-in-chief of Springer Nature's flagship publication, Nature, tells The Verge. "This new generation of LLM tools — including ChatGPT — has really exploded into the community, which is rightly excited and playing with them, but [also] using them in ways that go beyond how they can genuinely be used at present."
[...] Skipper says that banning AI tools in scientific work would be ineffective. "I think we can safely say that outright bans of anything don't work," she says. Instead, she says, the scientific community — including researchers, publishers, and conference organizers — needs to come together to work out new norms for disclosure and guardrails for safety.
Originally spotted on The Eponymous Pickle.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Friday February 03 2023, @10:06PM (1 child)
>they do generate feelings of superiority and narcissistic supply. Which is the point after all.
Yeah, I was in a place like that once. Had a two year obligation otherwise I'd have to pay them back for the (6+ months' salary) moving expenses they fronted to get me there. Not specifically because of that time limit, but kinda coincidentally a whole lot of factors came together which saw me leaving that place 2 years and 5 months after I started.
My favorite episode there was: proposed "improvement" to the product, I point out that the existing "unimproved" state presents an important test of a rare, but potentially deadly reaction to the product and it currently is performing that test in a well controlled environment with all kinds of support to recover if the 1/700 "bad thing" happens to be particularly bad in this case. In the "improved" product, that test now comes in a not-so-well-equipped location which could lead to serious freakout and maybe someday a death which could have been prevented in the better equipped environment. So, that 1/700 phenomenon is extremely taboo to speak about within earshot of upper management and several minions come at me with pre-prepared, if inappropriate, rebuttals. To which: I shrug. Y'all know: I came, I saw, I brought it up, you can listen or you can shut me down, but you can't say you never heard or thought of the possibilities.
So, like a month later, one of those minions - of course the one who shouted the loudest that I didn't know what I was talking about, it's all irrelevant, nothing to see here - turns around and picks up all my arguments and starts championing them all around the company as his own ideas. He pulls this shit to my boss right in front of me, my boss remembers very clearly that the whole thing was presented by me, to the core product team, a month ago, so we both sort of snort/grin at him and say: "Yeah, you run with that, sounds really solid to us."
The people above Mr. Idea Smuggler were worse, orders of magnitude worse.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2023, @04:39AM
I think the abrupt about-face done in a convincing manner is what distinguishes them to the upper tier. If you can't lie to my face convincingly, then you aren't going to make it 'round here.