Bigger problem for non-ML. It’s one thing to generate non-sense about Shakespeare or LGBTQ glaciology, it’s another to generate a even a bad ML paper complete with derivations, proofs, and experiments. And if a model can produce compelling ML papers, it should be allowed in on principle (though the experiments would be an issue, e.g., if the model completely fabricated the graphs reviewers won’t easily catch this. But this could be treated the same as a researcher fabricating data.)
rw_eevee t1_isxukxi wrote
Reply to [D] GPT-3 is a DREAM for citation-farmers - Threat Model Tuesday #1 by TiredOldCrow
Bigger problem for non-ML. It’s one thing to generate non-sense about Shakespeare or LGBTQ glaciology, it’s another to generate a even a bad ML paper complete with derivations, proofs, and experiments. And if a model can produce compelling ML papers, it should be allowed in on principle (though the experiments would be an issue, e.g., if the model completely fabricated the graphs reviewers won’t easily catch this. But this could be treated the same as a researcher fabricating data.)