1. Bad grammar in a paper is incredibly irritating, which is particularly unfair for people who are non-native English speakers. If ChatGPT can help people to convert awkward English into nicer work without changing the ideas or confabulating, that seems like a win. I don't see why people need to "declare" their usage of ChatGPT for these purposes. Is that a standard now?
2. The major issue here is that the authors copied a response and accidentally also brought some button text with it. This is given to imply that people aren't reading ChatGPT's output. But I think this is just as likely to be benign. People do all sorts of silly nonsense in papers (including me), like leaving author comments in final drafts. It's bad and sloppy, but it isn't usually a crime.
3. Many papers on public servers are junky. Many journals and conferences are equally junky. Search for any bad string and you'll find it everywhere, and non-scientists will be scandalized.
4. I like the people at Retraction Watch and think they're doing the Lord's work. However sometimes I worry that immersing yourself in wickedness makes you see wickedness everywhere, and also creates an (unconscious) incentive to sensationalize bad stuff. I hope they're aware of this.
1. Bad grammar in a paper is incredibly irritating, which is particularly unfair for people who are non-native English speakers. If ChatGPT can help people to convert awkward English into nicer work without changing the ideas or confabulating, that seems like a win. I don't see why people need to "declare" their usage of ChatGPT for these purposes. Is that a standard now?
2. The major issue here is that the authors copied a response and accidentally also brought some button text with it. This is given to imply that people aren't reading ChatGPT's output. But I think this is just as likely to be benign. People do all sorts of silly nonsense in papers (including me), like leaving author comments in final drafts. It's bad and sloppy, but it isn't usually a crime.
3. Many papers on public servers are junky. Many journals and conferences are equally junky. Search for any bad string and you'll find it everywhere, and non-scientists will be scandalized.
4. I like the people at Retraction Watch and think they're doing the Lord's work. However sometimes I worry that immersing yourself in wickedness makes you see wickedness everywhere, and also creates an (unconscious) incentive to sensationalize bad stuff. I hope they're aware of this.