Okay, so are these 8 pages of motivated reasoning formatted like they've been submitted to Science or to Nature?

https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-2724922/v1_covered.pdf?c=1680083818

Look, you can't count the carbon emissions that people have for (check notes) existing as the "carbon cost" of the work that they do.

I can't believe this needs to be said, but: LLMs are *optional*. Humans are not.

And here's a new twist on "we used ChatGPT to write our paper". Of course.
@emilymbender "To guarantee the integrity and originality of our work, we ran the text through TurnItIn plagiarism detection software." 🤣🤣🤣
@emilymbender "when managed responsibly"
... this is going to be a sh*tshow, isn't it?
@emilymbender ChatGPT Boilerplate generated by ... ???
@grebmar @emilymbender it'd be ironic if all this text had been generated by chatGPT and there wasn't actually any checks
@emilymbender I hope this gets so rejected and slapped (and ML/LLM (so-called "AI") is everything but environmental/responsible/…)
@emilymbender "environmentally sound decision"? I'd love to see their model. Then again, maybe it's just the usual transhumanism.

@emilymbender 😭

this is ... so bad it's hard to believe it's not parody.

I remember writing parodies of world-destroying-tech in the form of papers, but it was a simpler time (2005)

https://trochee.livejournal.com/118376.html

@emilymbender Honestly, they could have rephrased that as "we used ChatGPT to make writing the paper both longer and more work-intensive."

@emilymbender

thousands of GPU-hours are good for the environment somehow? wtf?

@rocketdyke @emilymbender
This is where quote-post would be handy. See higher up the thread @gerrymcgovern
@emilymbender they have understood absolutely nothing.