Academic Writing with GPT-3.5: Reflections on Practices, Efficacy and Transparency

February 12, 2023 ยท Declared Dead ยท ๐Ÿ› arXiv.org

๐Ÿ‘ป CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors OฤŸuz 'Oz' Buruk arXiv ID 2304.11079 Category cs.CL: Computation & Language Cross-listed cs.AI, cs.HC, cs.LG Citations 19 Venue arXiv.org Last Checked 4 months ago
Abstract
The debate around the use of GPT 3.5 has been a popular topic among academics since the release of ChatGPT. Whilst some have argued for the advantages of GPT 3.5 in enhancing academic writing, others have raised concerns such as plagiarism, the spread of false information, and ecological issues. The need for finding ways to use GPT 3.5 models transparently has been voiced, and suggestions have been made on social media as to how to use GPT 3.5 models in a smart way. Nevertheless, to date, there is a lack of literature which clearly outlines how to use GPT 3.5 models in academic writing, how effective they are, and how to use them transparently. To address this, I conducted a personal experience experiment with GPT 3.5, specifically by using OpenAI text davinci 003 model, for writing this article. I identified five ways of using GPT 3.5: Chunk Stylist, Bullet to Paragraph, Talk Textualizer, Research Buddy, and Polisher. I reflected on their efficacy, and commented on their potential impact on writing ethics. Additionally, I provided a comprehensive document which shows the prompts I used, results I got from GPT 3.5, the final edits and visually compares those by showing the differences in percentages.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

๐Ÿ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt โ€” Computation & Language

๐ŸŒ… ๐ŸŒ… Old Age

Attention Is All You Need

Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, ... (+6 more)

cs.CL ๐Ÿ› NeurIPS ๐Ÿ“š 166.0K cites 9 years ago

Died the same way โ€” ๐Ÿ‘ป Ghosted