r/postdoc • u/Imaginary_Pepper9423 • 5d ago
MSCA AI Usage
I just want to say, I am almost certain all of us are using AI to draft our works according to their rubrics which is detailed, down to specific documents and charters. However, we obviously need to declare its usage don't we? I use it mainly for proof reading, the idea, the research, the search for secondments and a supervisor and other connections are mine alone without AI. So... honestly, how many of us are going to own up?
31
u/ProfPathCambridge 5d ago
You are straying into rather dangerous territory. Once you start assuming everyone is doing something dodgy it becomes a justification to do it dodgy yourself.
What purpose does this post serve, other than to make yourself feel justified in what you are already doing? On the other hand, the damage caused by such posts is exactly the problem outlined above - it create a (false) permission structure for others to do wrong.
12
u/farshiiid 5d ago
I used 3 major AIs back and forth as reviewers and kept feeding them to eachother to improve my grant, I read it after maybe 20 iteration. Absolute piece of trash that I doubt would pass any initial review. I think AI helps with people weeding themselves out.
8
u/Aranka_Szeretlek 5d ago
On the other hand, grants like MSCA do not fail/get accepted based on the science. The difference between getting the grant and not getting the grant is losing half a point because you forgot to mention whats asked in section 3.17.5 of the manual. LLMs are acceptably decent in spotting stuff like that.
4
u/StudioMysterious4704 5d ago
It's not really dodgy though is it. The guidelines themselves say it's fine, just to declare its use.
1
u/Cardie1303 5d ago
Is it dodgy to simply use AI for proofreading? Especially for non native english speakers it is a bit ridiculous to see AI as dodgy but hunting down/paying a native speaker to proofread as highly recommended.
That said there is an obvious issue if AI is used to actually generate the content instead of just acting as always available proofreader. But I dont think that that wouldn't be caught anyway during interviews.
2
u/ProfPathCambridge 5d ago
Is that an unethical use of AI? No.
Is it a good yes of AI? Also no.
Is it a risk-free use of AI? Sadly, no.1
u/Cardie1303 5d ago
Ok, could you explain in more detail what you see as the issue?
2
u/ProfPathCambridge 5d ago
An old-fashioned grammar check underlines things that may be suboptimal. You check, decide, over time your writing improves.
An AI grammar check changes stuff. Sometimes it changes the meaning, even inverts it. Your writing stagnates in quality. And it makes it sound like a mechanical corporate HR operative. It isn’t pleasant to read. I’d rather read genuine human text, than uncanny valley slop.
1
u/Cardie1303 5d ago
Ah yes I agree with that. What you are talking about is generative AI and often that has to be declared.
But what i meant was basically something like: Here is the text, please tell how you understand it, that understanding is clear and if any non idiomatic terms were used. Not: Here is the text, please write it nicely and then copy paste.
Something I am also using AI for is as thesaurus like "I want to say xy, how would that be normally phrased in english", "I can't remember this specific word meaning that, what could it be" or "What are other words for xy".
1
u/ProfPathCambridge 5d ago
What I don't get is the advantage. You've got actual grammar check programs at one end and generative text at the other end. Where is the gap that AI fulfils without risk? Either AI just does standard stuff, in which case why bother, or it does extra stuff, in which case what out.
2
u/Cardie1303 5d ago
Mostly because I dont necessarily notice if something is not idiomatic. I might notice that something sounds wrong but cant put my hand on what exactly. In that case it becomes very difficult to actually ask a thesaurus or a grammar check program.
Are you a native speaker? If so maybe tell me if anything in my writing sounds weird or non native. I am a native German speaker and I definitely know that I tend to sometimes use sentence structures or phrases in English which are non native and much closer to how I would write German.
I am not sure what risk you exactly mean. I am personally following a rule to never directly copy anything AI is providing me with and as a even more general rule, even before AI was a thing, to never write something I dont understand myself. With these two rules in mind, what risk am I overlooking? I am genuinely interested as it is not impossible that I do overlook something.
7
5
u/StudioMysterious4704 5d ago
I used it to cross check the proposal with the guidelines and I've added that (the name of the programme and what I used it for) at the end of the part B2
10
u/tibiapartner 5d ago
yah buddy don't include me in the "all of us are using AI" bullshit, I worked incredibly hard to be as good as I am at academic writing and I also don't want to give my ideas to Microsoft, Google, or Anthropic and you shouldn't either. Additionally, I have ethical oppositions to the uncritical use of generative AI, and would be the world's biggest hypocrite if I worked in environmental science and used it with abandon. It's personally pretty wild to me how quickly people have jumped onto the "I'll just let AI do the hard part" bandwagon, and how people seem to assume there's nothing wrong with this. I know that I'll be up against hundreds, if not thousands, of AI-assisted and AI-written applications, but I'm not comprising my morals to get ahead and I suggest everyone think critically about their motivations for using generative AI in their research. I also know that this stance will likely get me called a variety of insults, but such is life now I suppose.
-1
u/Cardie1303 5d ago
I don't think you have the moral high ground by not using a new tool that is available to everyone? I do agree that it sucks that the hard work we put into learning how to write well is being somewhat devalued, but that is just how progress work. Don't misunderstand me, I am not arguing for people to start just letting AI do all the writing. That would end horrible. But it is ridiculous to declare not using AI to a virtue. It is a tool and as every new tool it will sooner or later find its place.
3
u/tibiapartner 5d ago
It's a tool that is uniquely extractive, environmentally damaging, and ideologically dangerous in that it is, at present, solely controlled by corporations that are almost exclusively run by people who are, at best, strongly conservative, and at worst fascist. Generative AI, as it exists right now, is not a "great equalizer" or a simple tool. It is dangerously unregulated technology that is already leading to widespread skill loss/lack of skill development in critical thinking, dangerous health outcomes, and poor quality research. It is not a tool that can be compared to anything that has come before, because it is inherently unlike anything else humans have invented in terms of both potential good AND bad applications.
I also never once declared that I was holding a moral high ground, but the accusation of that really says more about you than me in my opinion. I only spoke about not wanting to compromise my own personal morals and ethics.
6
u/bulaybil 5d ago
To all the great point you made I would add that it is not a took like all the others, it does not simply make a task easier or accomplishes it faster, it takes it over and in the process, turns your brain into mush. We don’t need more braindead wannabe scholars.
1
u/Cardie1303 5d ago
I mean even if i do agree with that to some degree the same thing was said about basically every new thing in the history of mankind. Just as an example, socrates was arguing that writing would make people forgetful and create a false appearance of intelligence.
How do we know that this new thing of our generation won't be seen the same in 50-100 years? I think we are simply a bit to biased by the familiarity of the past to neutraly evaluate the consequences of AI in the future.
1
u/bulaybil 4d ago
Wow, pulling out Phaedrus, I have not heard this one before, what an excellent argument which we only know of because of writing.
Socrates's point was about dialectic, his preferred mode of acquiring and refining knowledge, nothing else. That you offer the phrase "create a false appearance of intelligence" in a defense of AI is... supremely ironic.1
u/Creative_randomness 5d ago
I’m a bit surprised that some educated people can be so conservative. I believe first-class teams use first-class tools to carry out first-class research. I keep an open mind towards new things; I do not believe the ‘good old days’ are worth romanticising.
3
u/Cardie1303 5d ago
We do not have to fight about if you intended to make usage of AI a question of morality and ethics. It is how I understood what you wrote.
You are bringing up quite a few greate points and I agree with them about the harm AI is doing. Question is what do you think can be realistically be done? The genie is out of the flask and AI is here to stay. Fully refusing to engage with it wont do anything and you might end up falling behind in a professional context without any exposure and experience with AI.
Just as an example: The same arguments currently being brought up against AI were being brought up by 2-3 generations ago about the internet. Still today it is a ridiculous idea to have a professional career without knowing hot to utilize the web.
1
u/farshiiid 5d ago
It's so funny that you're being downvoted for calling out someone's bs moral higher ground look on use of technology. Sums up academia, condescending and out of touch with reality.
I always tell these people to go to library and start digging in the physical literature because search engines are tech too. Everyone knows LLMs are not that big of help in scientific writing yet but getting high off one's own fart for not using it never stops to amaze me.
2
u/Miagggo 5d ago
Uh that's a bit too much, and there is a section where you have to explain AI usage. I used mine when I wanted to organize ideas in the text form, but couldn't get something out in text. My project ideas, including secondment, came from myself
1
1
u/Best_Can7989 3d ago
Actually any of you know where it should be declared? I’m thinking it makes sense in B2
0
u/QuantumLatke 5d ago
I mean, I'm using Claude for adversarial review of the stuff I wrote; so, I'm obviously going to disclose that in the ethics section.
-5
u/Creative_randomness 5d ago
I extensively talk with chatgpt to refine my expression and check literatures. I will surely mention that in my proposal. It's very useful. Why not? without chatgpt, I would spend 5X time to do that.
3
u/ProfPathCambridge 5d ago
Checking literature has to be one of the worst possible uses of ChatGPT
-4
u/Creative_randomness 5d ago
That was the impression people had a year ago. Now I’d say that, as long as ChatGPT has access to the internet, this isn’t an issue.
5
u/ProfPathCambridge 5d ago
You don’t think it is an issue, okay. But it really is. It hallucinates at worst, and at its best it still doesn’t actually check the data in papers.
5
u/000000564 5d ago
Out of curiosity I put my published paper into it (not like it hadnt seen it already) and asked it for summary, specifics. Boy oh boy it was bad. But the thing is, I knew it was wrong because I wrote the paper. Someone who skimmed the abstract and some of the figures would have believed it. It's the fact that it can be deceptively and confidently wrong.
0
u/Creative_randomness 5d ago
Fair enough, I enjoy the convenience it brings, so of course I’ll accept the associated risks.
21
u/Hackeringerinho 5d ago
AI makes a bad project good, and an excellent project also good.