> But the human reviewers didn't do much better: they correctly identified only 68% of the generated abstracts and 86% of the genuine abstracts. They incorrectly identified 32% of the generated abstracts as being real and 14% of the genuine abstracts as being generated.
Isn't the headline actually "Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists 1/3 of the time"? Having never written one myself, wouldn't the abstract be the place where ChatGPT shines, being able to write unsubstantiated information confidently? I imagine getting into the meat of the paper would quickly reveal issues.
Isn't the headline actually "Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists 1/3 of the time"? Having never written one myself, wouldn't the abstract be the place where ChatGPT shines, being able to write unsubstantiated information confidently? I imagine getting into the meat of the paper would quickly reveal issues.