Edit: The post was probably heavily AI written and contains mistakes to that effect, which is unfortunate. The data in general is still interesting though.

  • MerryJaneDoe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 hours ago

    The issue with using AI is that the author doesn’t openly disclose the use at the beginning of the paper.

    Yes, I know this particular write-up isn’t for official submission to an academic journal, but sharing methodology is important.

    I would have no problem with AI-assisted writing IF the author credited the service used and, where applicable, included the prompts used.

    It should be similar to documenting any sourced material. It’s not just about giving credit where credit is due. It’s also about accountability.

    What a dumb comment.

    Why is this necessary? Does this add anything at all to the conversation?

    I’ve run a honeypot for the last month and the data is near-identical to this. It’s definitely credible.

    Ah, well then. Problem solved. Someone on the internet said it’s credible, therefore it must be credible. Tell ya what - when you create a webpage to display your data and then provide an analysis of said data, I’ll consider you credible. Until then, though, you are just some short-tempered, rude, anonymous voice shouting into the void.

    • magnue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      I won’t be posting shit. I just submitted IPs and reports to the hosts (surprisingly some of them were using azure/cloud services).

      Kindly, go fuck yourself.