found several more examples of scientists listing ChatGPT as an author, with at least one being chalked up to human error.
"The reason why we listed it as an author was because we believe it actually contributed intellectually to the content of the paper and not just as a subject for its evaluation," he told us, "just like how we wouldn't normally include human subjects/patients as authors, unless they contributed to the design/evaluation of the study itself, as well as the writing of the paper.
"Rather, we are saying that it contributed similarly to how we would typically expect a middle author to contribute," he explained, expressing how he was taken aback by "some of the reactions online at the moment." "I think some of this debate is missing the point and just shows how much angst there is from knowledge workers who are now under threat," Po told, arguing that generative adversarial networks, machine learning frameworks capable of producing entirely new and photorealistic images, have already been around for a decade producing novel input data and making contributions to scientific papers.
Cool it can pay taxes as well
it’s almost like all of our education is foundationally built on memorizing all the bullshit they write
Technology Technology Latest News, Technology Technology Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: wttw - 🏆 520. / 51 Read more »
Source: PopSci - 🏆 298. / 63 Read more »
Source: BreitbartNews - 🏆 610. / 51 Read more »
Source: KSLcom - 🏆 549. / 51 Read more »
Source: verge - 🏆 94. / 67 Read more »