You stopped reading because the author used ChatGPT to create a summary of an article they wrote themselves? This may actually be the best use case for ChatGPT.
Without saying one thing or another about the bots ability or propriety, I'd still argue that if the burden of summarizing succinctly something you wrote is so great that you need to pull out high-powered AI technology to do it, you should probably should spend some more time thinking about what you are writing.
Who cares about pure velocity if you are really trying to communicate something? We shouldn't measure written word by pure word count, or how quickly you can ship it. Not everything needs to be just some kind of hyper-advertising.
Just gives the impression they only care so much about what they wrote, that they only care so much about their readers!
I am the author of the post. The reason is that English is not my native language, and summarizing is very resource-consuming for me, much more than if I had to do it in my native language. But I take note of the antagonistic aspect and I will make sure to rewrite the summary ;)
FWIW, I'm a native English speaker and I've used ChatGPT to copy edit my own text to good effect, as well as both summarising and expanding on topics. If it helps you, I hope you don't feel the need to avoid using a useful tool.
If it's causing issues, you can remove mentions of it (I know there's also a desire to call out when it's not your own words entirely though). I'd only feel the need to explicitly say it was from a model if I'd not reviewed it - to make sure if it said something wrong it was clear to readers I'd not approved it.
I'd like it if it was more accepted though and it's a shame this has come up as a discussion.
Well you should know that you're writing is just fine as it is! Definitely understand and appreciate your motives here either way. I don't agree with the fellow commenters that this alone is enough to dismiss the entire thing, its not that big of a deal one way or another.
Depending on how exactly you mean use, I would not say so, because chatgpt cannot actually summarize anything.
In this case it may be ok because we may assume the author looked over the result and agrees with it. They could remove the citation as far as I'm concerned, the same way they don't have to cite their spell checker.
But a summary is a distillation of an understanding.
chatgpt does not understand anything, it is merely pattern-matching against and recomposing other texts.
The only reason the result is even half way sensible is because as of today, most other text that it is matching against and recomposing was written by people who did understand what they were writing and writing about.
So I would perhaps agree that a person using it as part of the process of their own writing is a good use case. But I would not agree that chatgpt can summarize things, and would not say that letting it do the entire job of interpreting and restating is a good use case.
You claim that ChatGPT cannot understand anything because it merely pattern matches. Humans are basically pattern matching machines, we are just currently better than our computer counterparts. Do humans understand anything? I find this debate over whenever a computer can understand anything rather pointless. If something can produce useful output I don't care if it 'actually understands' anything.
You are equating or confusing appearance with essense.
An mp3 player that says "hello" is not greeting you, and you are not merely playing a recording of the sound "hello" at your neighbor.
A person can do many of the same outward actions as a machine. A machine can be made that carries rocks. You can also carry rocks. This does not make you really no different from a truck.
So a person can pattern-match, and write formulaically.
> chatgpt does not understand anything, it is merely pattern-matching against and recomposing other texts.
Research looking at a GPT model trained to play othello showed it had a model of the board state rather than simply pattern matching moves. You're confusing the training of a model with the operation of a model.
Who cares about pure velocity if you are really trying to communicate something? We shouldn't measure written word by pure word count, or how quickly you can ship it. Not everything needs to be just some kind of hyper-advertising.
Just gives the impression they only care so much about what they wrote, that they only care so much about their readers!