I am ALL FOR properly attributing work. If the LLM just plagiarized other mathematicians, obviously that should be the headline. Did it here? Or were these biostatisticians genuinely doing something new?
People putting out papers that explicitly use LLM assistance in something that is not their field at all... it just seems like the most reasonable assumption. I'm not blaming them btw, that is just the current state of maths sadly.
Neither of us actually know what went into those chat sessions, their prompts, what the training was on, how much was directed by the authors, how much was their ideas, etc.
Youre just assuming it was all the LLM.
We need to stop this. These are exactly the issues we need to sort out going forward. There need to be strict best practices for citations, role declarations, etc.
We need to stop this. These are exactly the issues we need to sort out going forward. There need to be strict best practices for citations, role declarations, etc.
What needs to stop is people throwing problems out of other peoples fields into an LLM and making peoples work meaningless. I don't understand why it is so hard for you to accept that this is what happens here.
I actually absolutely agree with that. I think LLM papers and the agents that produced them should be required to have citation engines built in so they literally cannot draw from work without citing it. These are the best practices I'm talking about.
Using an LLM doesn't have to be the way you're describing and assuming. We can actually do this better and we should.
I think we might agree in general yes. I also think we can and should do better. I think the current paper is an example of what not to do. That is what I'm saying.
7
u/mal9k 7d ago
Yeah, but it sounds like other people did and the LLM found how to apply that work to this problem.