ChatGPT has been around a while now. One of the things that has been noticed about ChatGPT (and other large language models) is their preference for using rather flowery language. Certainly, they use more elaborate language than you would see in the average research paper. Forbes has a good article on over-used words and phrases in ChatGPT, where it cites:
...foster, delve, dive, landscape, dynamic, embark, realm, vital, transformative, it's important to note, and perhaps the cheesiest phrase of all: "It's a testament to..."
To that list should be added "tapestry", "discourse", "weave", and "mosaic". This Reddit thread from early last year also has some good examples. Once you know what to look for, you start to see these phrases becoming increasingly common.
Why does ChatGPT use those phrases? ChatGPT is trained on the corpus of human writing, which includes academic articles, books (both non-fiction and fiction), and writing on the internet, among other things. If ChatGPT was only trained on academic writing, then its writing style would likely be quite formal and academic. Because ChatGPT is trained on a lot of more creative and informal writing, then its style is much more creative than we would expect to see in an academic research paper.
I think this is quite well known. So, I wasn't surprised when I saw some of those words and phrases used in this 2024 journal article (open access) I read today, published in the journal Innovative Higher Education. Or maybe I should have been surprised, given that the article was about students' acceptance of ChatGPT. To be clear, the article includes the following phrases (emphasis is mine):
However, a marked improvement in AI’s capabilities, particularly in the realm of generative AI, became apparent in last decade...
One can point to the surge of interest in AI’s educational potential over the last decade, juxtaposed with a landscape marked by exaggerated claims and often inconclusive findings...
This investigation, therefore, situates itself within this rich tapestry of debates, possibilities, and challenges. By delving deeper into the matrix of technology adoption, artificial intelligence, and the nuances presented by applications like ChatGPT, we aim to contribute to a more informed, equitable, and constructive discourse that respects both the transformative potential of AI and the foundational tenets of education in the twenty-first century...
We delve into the determinants that foster or inhibit its acceptance and utilization...
In the realm of higher education the UTAUT2 model is used to identify factors affecting students’ or teachers’ intentions to use different technology tools such as e-learning systems...
Recent research delves into the increasing discourse around the integration and application of AI-driven tools in education...
Our investigation pivots to a different facet of the educational journey, centering on students’ acceptance and utilization of generative AI utilities. This research’s value lies in shedding light on determinants shaping the embrace of such AI-driven tools.
There are other examples I could cite as well, but you get the idea. There is a certain vibe about those sentences, and that vibe is ChatGPT.
Perhaps I'm being unfair. Maybe some academics really do use those phrases. I checked this author's other publications, and in this 2024 article (also on students' acceptance of ChatGPT, but with a co-author this time), they also use "delve" (the third word of the abstract is "delves"), "foster" (also in the abstract), "discourse", and "realm", but at least there are no tapestries in sight. So, perhaps these words and phrases really are a key part of their vocabulary. However, if I go back to the author's pre-ChatGPT articles, like this one, and this one, there is no delving, weaving, or fostering, or any tapestries, landscapes or discourses. Now, our writing styles can change over time. But this change of writing style towards the ChatGPT style, at just the time that ChatGPT becomes available, is pretty fishy.
Having delved into the rich tapestry of this author's publications, there is multifaceted evidence that fosters a view that at least some parts of their papers are now being written by ChatGPT. Which, given the topic, is kind of ironic. [*] Especially when 'they' write that:
The role of ChatGPT in academic authorship raises concerns about integrity and recognition of contribution.
Indeed.
*****
[*] To be fair to the author, it isn't prohibited to use ChatGPT or other large language models in writing up research papers. However, like using research assistants, it is good practice to acknowledge them. And increasingly, journal editorial policies are mandating that the use of these tools is disclosed. I'm also not saying that their analysis is tainted by the use of ChatGPT. It is tainted by their use of structural equation modelling, but that is altogether a different story for another time.
No comments:
Post a Comment