https://upstream.force11.org/an-initial-scholarly-ai-taxonomy/
What the world worried about...
What the SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING world worried about...
"Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, do not currently satisfy our authorship criteria. Notably an attribution of authorship carries with it accountability for the work, which cannot be effectively applied to LLMs."
https://www.nature.com/nature-portfolio/editorial-policies/ai
authorship
What the SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING world worried about...
"So, use ChatGPT at your own peril. Just as I would not recommend collaborating with a colleague with pseudologia fantastica, I do not recommend ChatGPT as an aid to scientific writing."
ChatGPT: these are not hallucinations – they’re fabrications and falsifications
Robin Emsley
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41537-023-00379-4
collaborating with a colleague with pseudologia fantastica
So, use ChatGPT at your own peril.
What the SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING world worried about...
"This initial taxonomy outlined in this article can serve as a starting point for understanding how AI can contribute to publishing workflows. By quantifying AI contributions in this way, we can also discuss the ethical boundaries of AI-assisted workflows more clearly and help publishers make informed decisions about AI integration."