pull down to refresh
Used ChatGPT. I subscribed to Claude again this week, so I will see if it comes up with a similar argument as ChatGPT.
My first thought was haha I guess all my contributions are useless, but then I realized that some of my work actually would be in textbooks of certain subjects (should one be written) and I felt a flash of satisfaction
In a similar vein, I think the number of citations is a good proxy to decide whether a certain piece of research was worth one's time (and society's taxes). When I referee a paper, I always know quite well whether the article will get cited a lot or will only end up with some self-citations by the authors before disappearing into oblivion. Unfortunately, the majority of publications these days fall in the latter category. One can hope that some positive side effects remain, such as the training of the author to improve his critical thinking skills, but I'm skeptical.
reply
My first thought was haha I guess all my contributions are useless, but then I realized that some of my work actually would be in textbooks of certain subjects (should one be written) and I felt a flash of satisfaction
Did you use Claude? I definitely think Claude is skirting very close to the line of "throw up enough complicated stuff to sound smart and make it hard for someone to check whether you're right"
Even in the way it writes, it loves to use heavy jargon and lots of numbers in a way almost designed to make it hard to follow without a pencil and paper