Agreed, athletes work their entire young lives towards these singular moments in their careers, doubtful any of them give it up because of the host country.

This stuff has been on the internet since there was an internet. It's not new.

It going out to the public that is not searching for it is an issue.

Doesn't even make up for inflation.

It's sustainable as long as 300 million Americans do nothing about it.

Bye Vladdy :(

Angela in this thread so far I've been told I'm using abuser language, I'm a fuckwit, I have poor grammar, and I'm a bad academic.

I may not have the best attitude at times but I certainly don't converse with other people the way I've been treated in this thread thankfully.

All within ~60 years. The next 60 years will progress farther and faster.

I guess I'm just disappointed that instead of fruitful discussion on the future of academic possibilities aided by artificial intelligence I was simply met by harsh vitriol of people who seem frightened and angry.

I don't disagree that fruitful academic work takes time and experience.

But I think the assumption by some here that is that an LLM or whatever the next progression is, won't EVER be able to do this. We've made atoms act like a switch and now we're using billions of them to mimic intelligence.

I don't disagree, but soon you're going to be very surprised when they start to get passed you without knowing. Good luck to you. :)

That's unfortunate. Your world is about to be flung upside down in the next decade. Good luck to you. :)

So if an AI wrote a proper lit review one day that was deemed worthy by academics. Would you change your mind on the topic?

So you believe scholars need to have an aspect of rigor to their profession to make it worthy of being useful work. That's a fair point.

What if one day an AI writes something that is actually unique and has rigor to it? Will you change your mind then?

You are talking about two different things here.

- The act of learning being replaced by an LLM.
- The act of writing academic papers with the aid of an LLM.

The first one I can understand, the second one I don't understand. If you wrote the paper with the aid of another person it's fine.

Stop churning out papers then and see how it goes for you. :)

Why is it 100% bullshit? You said in another comment it's just autocorrect. Yes? And?

Because it's a really fancy auto-correct you're against it? Or you don't believe it's been trained on most of the internet and textbooks? Or you don't believe it can regurgitate useful information?

I mean it is in just about every other field? You're talking about ChatGPT style LLMs but Artificial Intelligence is a much broader field. Should the oncologist not be using AlphaFold to help them discover new cancer drugs? That's an LLM.

Why would we do that? Artificial Intelligence very easily slots alongside Human Intelligence as a type of augmentation to our ideas and work. Imagine having a friend with a memory and knowledge so infinitely fast that you tell them not to help you make your paper better.

Seriously Aparna, I struggle to understand why are you not viewing this as another tool for academics to use and become more proficient and efficient versus it being an attack on academic integrity?