People with a pro-science bias should be banned from any and all advisory panels.

Thank you for the reply!
I kind of agree with you on the technical aspect.
My problem with the 'parrot' term is that it feels anthropomorphizing (for lack of a better term) to me.
Parrots are these cute birds who talk to humans in order to be not alone. That's not how I perceive LLMs :)

I'll let my AI assistant call the editor every day, asking them to fast-track my paper, please.
For every paper they reject, we'll send two more. If I can't get my paper published, nobody else should either.

Why won't ChatGPT tell me how to build a bomb but Prism will happily fabricate fake experimental results for me?

I am a rather slow writer who might profit from an AI writing aid.
A good tool would encourage me, help me while *I* am writing, and maybe keep me from taking shortcuts.

Prism does none of these things - instead it pushes me towards sloppy practices.

The term has been coined in this paper: dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/...

I actually don't like it that much because it minimizes how powerful current LLMs actually are. (Both the good and bad kind of power.) They are not simply word-completion machines but train-of-thought completion machines IMHO.

Yes, we already have enough systemic problems in science. Unfortunately, AI does not solve any of them but creates new ones or amplifies existing ones.

I guess that's my point, too.

As others have noted in the Hacker News discussion: having scientists write about their research in Prism would provide OpenAI with high-quality training data - a resource that is getting ever scarcer the more AI-generated content permeates online sources.

news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4678...

I really wish #OpenAI would stop releasing free stochastic parrots in every community they can think of.
They sure look pretty but they are shitting all over the place and you can't have a decent conversation between humans anymore.

Look at the current situation with bug reports for open-source projects. Coming to an academic journal near you this summer...

bsky.app/profile/gerg...

Why bother reflecting on the implications of your study if there is already a perfectly acceptable discussion section?
Why spend time doing your own literature research when the ChatGPT version looks good enough. Better spend your time on more important stuff. (/s)

It feels so attractive to just let GPT write a paper draft for you as inspiration, then conduct the actual experiment based on the draft's description, and stop thinking hard about proper methods yourself.

While creating and submitting AI slop papers has been possible before, Prism makes it quite a bit easier. And I fear that it pushes even well-meaning researchers in a dangerous direction.

OpenAI is now "revolutionizing" science.
I've become a 10x researcher with this simple trick.

We'll see exactly the same outcomes as with the bug reports.

prism.openai.com

Alternative hypothesis: the hairdresser has shorted Nvidia and now needs to plant the 'AI bubble' concept into the minds of people with expensive haircuts.

3/3 Muss man dazu auswendig wissen, wo das §-Zeichen auf der Tastatur ist? Nö. Aber wenn man mal ein Tastaturlayout auswendig lernt, beschäftigt man sich zumindest damit. Sicher gibt es bessere Methoden dafür - aber auch viele Dinge im Informatik-Unterricht, die deutlich weniger sinnvoll sind.

2/3 Ich erwarte von Studierenden, dass sie wissen wo welche Shortcuts sind und nicht ewig brauchen um einen Satz zu schreiben. Akzeptable Tippgeschwindigkeit ist Voraussetzung für effiziente Online-Recherche.
Tastaturbenutzung sollte man mMn daher in der Schule auch lernen.