Marina Klimi | Graphic Designer | Digital Creator | Redbubble Artist’s Post

7 ChatGPT-4o Prompts That Will Make Your Jaw Drop: - RT @_bryanmarley:

7 ChatGPT-4o Prompts That Will Make Your Jaw Drop: - RT @_bryanmarley:

7 ChatGPT-4o Prompts That Will Make Your Jaw Drop: - RT @_bryanmarley:

7 ChatGPT-4o Prompts That Will Make Your Jaw Drop: - RT @_bryanmarley:

Learn How to Create Different Types of ChatGPT’s with Molly Mahoney Follow for Part TWO!

Incredulous, I actually had to go to the publication link myself to confirm that the highlighted text is in the introduction, and sure enough, there it is in the published article 😬 This speaks to the lack of diligence not only on the part of the (no less than) five authors of the article, but the editorial staff at the "Surfaces and Interfaces" journal. Moreover, it brings into question Elsevier's editorial model generally, and makes you wonder how many ostensibly scholarly publications may be substantially authored by LLMs (hallucinations and all) and are currently flying under the wire. #ai #artificialintelligence #llm #llms #aiethics

🦾 Peer Review under scrutiny 🧐 .. begs the question, how has this paper survived the processes preceding peer-review, peer-review itself and, finally, publication!!! Use of LLMs is not bad but that shouldn’t take over the natural and spontaneous expressions!! #generativeai #ai #artificialintelligence #largelanguagemodels #researchpaper

"Strangely" I can't see any Altmetric info regarding this paper. Late to the party regarding this topic, but I don't think it's a reason to fight the peer-review process: in my opinion, it's a process with several issues, many side effects, and aspects to enhance, but it continues to be effective. On the other hand, as even YouTube started to tight controls regarding #AI generated videos, it's time for journals and publishers to better understand how to avoid these "bloopers" (euphemism): no one, not even the most prestigious scientific journals, can afford such mistakes that undermine credibility. By our side (reviewers and section editors) it's even more important to be precise in the process: maybe it's the moment to reserve more time for reviewing, for example, or maybe it’s time to make the review process remunerated. But please, credibility and integrity is needed first of all from the authors: I read so many legitimate criticisms to editors, the peer-review process, but few (or no) criticisms to the authors; submitting a paper All the actors in this field should discuss it: #LLMs are powerful tools that will increase the workload in the next months (or even weeks), and a lack of credibility is the worst "thing" to achieve: both in European Radiology and in #Radiology has been showed how it's easy to create a paper in a short time. https://lnkd.in/dusgwaiZ  EuSoMII - European Society of Medical Imaging Informatics Daniel Pinto dos Santos Erik R. Ranschaert, MD, PhD Dr Hugh Harvey Merel Huisman, MD, PhD Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) European Society of Neuroradiology European Society of Radiology Tessa Cook Charles Kahn Elsevier Springer Nature Group American Society of Neuroradiology #chatGPT #GPT4

How To Rank Your Website In ChatGPT: 10 Strategies by Megan Mahoney at: https://ow.ly/g4Xf50S5Quc via @copyblogger #writingtip #pubtip

Critical reading of “published” papers is becoming even more important than ever. Add this to the steaming heap of junk papers that permeate the scientific literature due to fraud, paper mills, hijacked journals, or just plain poor quality, low-yield work, and sifting through the chaff to find the wheat starts to become a research endeavor in its own right. The perverse incentives inherent in the whole scientific publishing ecosystem must be addressed rapidly, otherwise the perceived need to incessantly churn out more papers will set scientific progress back.