serhii, to ChatGPT Ukrainian
@serhii@mstdn.science avatar

Prominent academic publishers agreed that and Co. should not be listed as the author of a scientific paper, as AI is not responsible for the content. Did everyone listen? We conducted a search in WoS and Scopus and found 14 papers with ChatGPT as the "author":

👉 https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2345713

We recommend that the publishers promptly review and correct these papers and continue to adhere to ethical standards in academic publications.

kyozou, to ai
@kyozou@sfba.social avatar

I dare someone to collect a bunch of stuff that @mmasnick has written, package it up, and publish it as a book for sale on Amazon.

deevybee, to random
@deevybee@mastodon.social avatar

shocking piece on failure of research integrity at Swiss Center for Proton Therapy.
What is euphemistically termed ‘guest authorship’ was, in this case, more like ‘extorted authorship’
https://forbetterscience.com/2024/03/25/the-paul-scherrer-rules/

petersuber, to Medicine
@petersuber@fediscience.org avatar

New study: "The practice of automatically assigning senior members of departments as co-authors on all submitted manuscripts may be common in the health sciences…Those admitting to this practice find[] it unjustified in most cases."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-55966-x

petersuber, (edited ) to ChatGPT
@petersuber@fediscience.org avatar

Confused + confusing

Here's an argument that can't be an "author". OK. But it calls this view "conservative" & the alt view "liberal". Why these terms? Apparently it's liberal to argue "that grounding authorship or…agency-entailing statuses in mentality represents a misguided 'logocentric metaphysics' of appearance vs. reality, because even tho such a distinction might be pragmatically useful, it problematically justifies power relations."
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13347-024-00715-1

djlink, to random
@djlink@mastodon.gamedev.place avatar

lol, it's not fun when they do it to you huh?

kkarhan,
@kkarhan@mstdn.social avatar

@djlink Which is funny because in many juristictions like , can't create output by the fact that only a natural person can have and ony things with Authorship have .

But then again we also don't have but only permissible licenses and lapsed Copyright as one can't abdicate or deny Authorship!

foone, to random
@foone@digipres.club avatar

the most 2023-internet thing is that when you google "public domain icons" you mainly get sites which offer commercial or limited-use icons, but you get their icons that show the idea of "public domain".

lots of copyright symbols with a big NO symbol over it, available to license for limited personal use for 5.99$ a month

kkarhan,
@kkarhan@mstdn.social avatar

@catsalad @foone @creativecommons Still, I'd rather stick with since is not a legal license in as one can't legally abdicate or but only transfer the former...

EverMama8_, to random
@EverMama8_@mastodon.social avatar

AI destroys principles of authorship.

A scary case from educational technology publishing.

https://kalz.cc/2023/09/15/ai-destroys-principles-of-authorship.-a-scary-case-from-educational-technology-publishing./

kkarhan,
@kkarhan@mstdn.social avatar

@EverMama8_ that's the nice part: This only works in juristictions that allow surrendering of .

Which doesn't allow.

Conveniently that means no computer-generated content can be copyrighted AND even if someone made a hatespeech bot they'd still be in for hatespeech!

funcrunch, to random
@funcrunch@me.dm avatar

I keep reading misconceptions about writing for @medium, which annoy me as a long-time subscriber and writer for that platform. To try to clear some things up:

  • Authors can set for each story whether it is behind the paywall (and thus eligible for earnings) or not.

  • Authors can share unlimited "friends links" to bypass the paywall.

  • The subscription fee ($5/mo or $50/yr) gives unlimited access to all stories on Medium, plus a Mastodon account on me.dm.

cc @coachtony

1/2

kkarhan,
@kkarhan@mstdn.social avatar

@funcrunch @medium @coachtony Shure, tho doesn't exist in my juristiction as one cannot surrender , but to go back to :

I don't like but I can accept it if it's an actual like my .

It may be amd to decentivize copying it but at the end of the day, I want to keep it ...

petersuber, to ai
@petersuber@fediscience.org avatar

The US reiterates the rule that the "author" of a copyrightable work must be a human being, and tries to clarify the ways in which authors may use tools to assist in producing copyrightable work. https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf

For example, an author "may modify material originally generated by AI technology to such a degree that the modifications meet the standard for copyright protection."

ACM, to ChatGPT
@ACM@mastodon.acm.org avatar

ACM Authorship Policy updated to include guidelines regarding the use and citation of ! Take a look now 👀: https://bit.ly/42lrIdz

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • JUstTest
  • kavyap
  • DreamBathrooms
  • cubers
  • cisconetworking
  • osvaldo12
  • magazineikmin
  • Youngstown
  • thenastyranch
  • rosin
  • slotface
  • Durango
  • mdbf
  • khanakhh
  • megavids
  • tacticalgear
  • InstantRegret
  • normalnudes
  • modclub
  • ngwrru68w68
  • everett
  • GTA5RPClips
  • ethstaker
  • anitta
  • Leos
  • tester
  • provamag3
  • lostlight
  • All magazines