A very reasonable policy for AI use - kudos to everyone involved for reacting quickly to this phenomenon. I wonder how long this state of affairs lasts in which humans use AI as a tool for a boost in productivity, and at which point humans would just add noise to superior content created by AI. I think the latter situation would require a more fundamental reconsideration of how universities and academia are arranged.
Probably takes a long time before that happens. The current paradigm in generative AI is predictive. For example GPT is good at predicting what a response written by human would look like. But there is no conceptual understanding behind it. Try asking ChatGPT for example to give examples of publications that I have written. It come up with a list of publications but none of the listed publications actually exist.
@@mronkko I have asked the bot for a literature i am expert in. It created a general review referenced to a non-existent literature and after my question it admitted it doesn't have access to literature reference.Its useful for text modification and general use.Nevertheless there are programs that detect AI modified texts.I guess in the future there will be restrictions similar to plagiarism check; machine created texts check.
@@MrThessalonikiman1 I have also entertained myself by asking it what I have published and got a list of non-existing articles. I do not think that AI detection will be that useful. I see GPT like an improved Grammarly (I have paid subscription for the tool) that can help me in my writing. It is like a coauthor. I use it to rewrite my own ideas in more fluent way and then put finishing touches on the text myself. I see nothing wrong in this approach so it is not clear what good detecting the use of AI in the writing process would do. Should we also ban spell checkers? www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00340-6
@@mronkko I agree that all people publishing articles need this type of assistance.I believe its a great help regardless of one's writing skill.I personally use it this way just as a starting point and at the very end to correct the most obvious flaws in my text. Between these two stages I believe i have to work in my arguments in order to support my findings. Im afraid that there will be over abuse of this tool , people using AI-generated research documents without being familiar with the topic without no effort.
@@mronkko I study psychology at KUleuven and had a test about individual differences. Unfortunately I misunderstood the manner in which we had to understand factor analysis. We just had to analyze and interpret tables graphs etc. But thanks to your videos on factor analysis, which i binge watched a couple of times, I really grasp the idea behind factorial models. Your videos gave a thorough explanation and helped me with insight in what is actually going on. Although the test didnt go all to well, THANK YOU!
A very reasonable policy for AI use - kudos to everyone involved for reacting quickly to this phenomenon.
I wonder how long this state of affairs lasts in which humans use AI as a tool for a boost in productivity, and at which point humans would just add noise to superior content created by AI. I think the latter situation would require a more fundamental reconsideration of how universities and academia are arranged.
Probably takes a long time before that happens. The current paradigm in generative AI is predictive. For example GPT is good at predicting what a response written by human would look like. But there is no conceptual understanding behind it. Try asking ChatGPT for example to give examples of publications that I have written. It come up with a list of publications but none of the listed publications actually exist.
@@mronkko I have asked the bot for a literature i am expert in. It created a general review referenced to a non-existent literature and after my question it admitted it doesn't have access to literature reference.Its useful for text modification and general use.Nevertheless there are programs that detect AI modified texts.I guess in the future there will be restrictions similar to plagiarism check; machine created texts check.
@@MrThessalonikiman1 I have also entertained myself by asking it what I have published and got a list of non-existing articles.
I do not think that AI detection will be that useful. I see GPT like an improved Grammarly (I have paid subscription for the tool) that can help me in my writing. It is like a coauthor. I use it to rewrite my own ideas in more fluent way and then put finishing touches on the text myself. I see nothing wrong in this approach so it is not clear what good detecting the use of AI in the writing process would do. Should we also ban spell checkers?
www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00340-6
@@mronkko I agree that all people publishing articles need this type of assistance.I believe its a great help regardless of one's writing skill.I personally use it this way just as a starting point and at the very end to correct the most obvious flaws in my text. Between these two stages I believe i have to work in my arguments in order to support my findings. Im afraid that there will be over abuse of this tool , people using AI-generated research documents without being familiar with the topic without no effort.
I love you!
You are welcome.
@@mronkko I study psychology at KUleuven and had a test about individual differences. Unfortunately I misunderstood the manner in which we had to understand factor analysis. We just had to analyze and interpret tables graphs etc. But thanks to your videos on factor analysis, which i binge watched a couple of times, I really grasp the idea behind factorial models. Your videos gave a thorough explanation and helped me with insight in what is actually going on. Although the test didnt go all to well, THANK YOU!