Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

svd- t1_j840c7q wrote

Replying to _sshin_ (#1,778,586)

Genuinely interested in learning how to build such things, can you explain how did you build this extension and linked it to chat gpt from system design perspective.

16

Trakeen t1_j841ust wrote

I really like chatgpt but i typically find the abstract good enough to summarize the paper

255

niclas_wue t1_j842pyo wrote

Hey, great idea, looks very interesting. Do you use the abstract as an input or do you actually parse the paper? I built something quite similar: http://www.arxiv-summary.com which summarizes trending AI papers as bullet points. However, I think a chrome extension allows for a much more flexible paper choice, which is really great.

37

Reddit1990 t1_j84815i wrote

... isn't that the point of the summary at the start of a paper?

83

Reddit1990 t1_j848225 wrote

... isn't that the point of the summary at the start of a paper?

4

Sola_Maratha t1_j84hy4h wrote

Guys, I tried it,
It is good but not really impressive,
had more expectation,
but ok to say

1

maxip89 t1_j84n20r wrote

It would add value if you can ask questions about the paper. E.g. some mechanics applied.

4

Rieux_n_Tarrou t1_j84vns3 wrote

Serious question: how are you using chatGPT programmatically? As I understand, open AI only has GPT3 accessible via API. ChatGPT is only accessible through chat.OpenAI.com, There is a waiting list to access the chat. GPT API

15

endless_sea_of_stars t1_j858dvn wrote

Replying to Iunaml (#1,779,735)

> abstract is meant is often a bit clickbaity.

Had a vision of a nightmare future where papers are written in click bait fashion.

Top Ten Shocking Properties of Positive Solutions of Higher Order Differential Equations and Their Astounding Applications in Oscillation Theory. You won't believe number 7!

78

Trakeen t1_j85aa80 wrote

Replying to A_Light_Spark (#1,781,282)

Probably depends on field? I’ve not typically encountered this and most other researchers are going to be looking at dozens of papers at least so they really don’t want to actually have to dig into a paper to find the meat

2

[deleted] t1_j85flmh wrote

Replying to Trakeen (#1,781,673)

The problem I found with chatgpt and other AI is the word limit. I believe it is 4000 words max. and that includes the summary as well.

If anyone knows a fix, please let me know. In the meantime, I use an AI-tool called scholarcy, but it lacks data to be fed with. I study a subject that is *very* reading-heavy, so I can't simply rely on the abstract, and 100 pages per week/course is mostly too much to handle, while working part-time.

8

bik1230 t1_j85oq4m wrote

Is the amount of context ChatGPT can process really enough for a typical research paper?

4

Mobile-Bird-6908 t1_j866b6d wrote

Replying to endless_sea_of_stars (#1,781,546)

Let's start an academic journal named "Trashademia", where we only accept articles with click bait titles. If your research is otherwise not worthy of a publication, we will accept it anyways as long as the content is presented with plenty of humour and trash talk.

11

_sphinxfire t1_j868s22 wrote

Reminder: ChatGPT will routinely leave out aspects of information even if you are giving it the task of re-phrasing what you have said in a different style, if this information is deemed problematic in some way - and it will do this without even telling you.

This effect will also be present - probably even more pronounced - in summaries.

2

starfries t1_j87r1js wrote

Replying to A_Light_Spark (#1,781,780)

I have definitely seen the kind of papers you're talking about, but this one seems fine to me? Granted I skimmed it really quickly but the title says it's a review article and the abstract reflects that.

As an aside: I really like the format I see in bio fields (and maybe others, but this is where I've encountered it) of putting the results before the detailed methodology. It doesn't always make sense for a lot of CS papers where the results are the most boring part (essentially being "it works better") but where it does it leads to a much better paper in my opinion.

3

starfries t1_j87ypnt wrote

Replying to A_Light_Spark (#1,786,870)

Maybe it's a difference in fields. I rarely see people do meta-analysis in ML so it didn't strike me as odd. Most of the reviews are just "here's what people are trying" with some attempt at categorization. But I see what you mean now, it makes sense that having a meta-analysis is important in medical fields where you want to aggregate studies.

2

muntoo t1_j881naw wrote

Replying to endless_sea_of_stars (#1,781,546)

Wouldn't hurt if the average paper were written more engagingly than it is now.

Not like

> "This mind-numbing discovery broke the university intranet and gave our Doc Brown lookalike professor a heart attack!",

but something better than

> "The quasi-entropic property of a Clifford algebraic structure has been determined by [7] to induce permutations upon information-theoretic monoidal categories, which are commonly known to be derived from the generalized relaxation of the Curry-Howard-Lambek formulation (Equation 112358) under Noetherian ideal invariance [41], as shown in Figure (lol jk only unsophisticated normies doth require the non-abstract nonsense known outside of Shakespearean tragedies as a figure), and therefore, this provides support for the main result of our paper: that the successor of the Mesopotamian invention 1 = succ(0) in summation with itself is equal to the successor of the successor of the aforementioned invention, which is widely believed to be the first and only even prime, and additionally happens to be a popular choice of base for logarithms in information theory, and furthermore provides a fundamental basis for classical logic which is based on the concept of truth and falsehood, ergo a number of logical states which can be described as the least number of branches under which bifurcation occurs [17,29,31-91]."

> (Dr. Obvious et al. "1 + 1 is usually 2." vixra [eprint]. 2011.)

9

beautifoolstupid t1_j89ige0 wrote

Replying to Rieux_n_Tarrou (#1,789,188)

da-vinci-003 (instructGPT) uses GPT3.5 as mentioned by OpenAI employees on twitter. ChatGPT is just finetuned for dialogue. If you use the playground, there isn’t much difference in the output. In fact, da-vinci is more suited for building applications IMO.

4

EuphoricPenguin22 t1_j89zm8l wrote

Replying to Rieux_n_Tarrou (#1,789,159)

Yep; it used to access chat.openai.com and used Puppeteer (headless Chrome) to semi-automatically traverse the login. They're claiming now that they have some sort of more direct access (not GPT-3 API) and that method is obsolete, so I'm not sure what it's doing now.

2

Remarkable_Ad9528 t1_j8boasb wrote

Isn't this what Bing is doing out of the box? Same with the browser Opera (they're releasing a new feature called the "Shorten" button which internally calls OpenAI. I'd expect Google to release this as part of Chrome as well.

2