So schwer kann es doch nicht sein. Wirklich.
Es gibt einen Blogpost von Eine Sammlung von unverminderter Haarspalterei zum Thema ChatGPT, der nebst den (uns vermutlich allen bekannten) Argumenten ĂŒber den Wert von AufsĂ€tzen und ChatGPTs BeschrĂ€nkungen hinsichtlich FachverstĂ€ndnis auch ein Beispiel liefert.
We can demonstrate this by asking ChatGPT an almost trivially easy research question, like, âWhat is the relationship between Edward Luttwakâs Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire and Benjamin Isaacâs The Limits of Empire?â And so we did:
Image: Screenshot of ChatGPT's response, asserting that the books approach the Roman Empire from different angles, providing a summary for each book, acknowledging that they intersect in some ways, but concluding that they're ultimately distinct books providing different perspectives.
If you know nothing about either book, this answer almost sounds useful (it isnât) (Footnote: the description of The Limits of Empire in particular is poor and mostly misses the bookâs core argument [...]). Now this is a trivial research task; simply typing âthe limits of empire reviewâ into Google and then clicking on the very first non-paywalled result ([a book review]) and reading the first paragraph makes almost immediately clear the correct answer is that Isaacâs book is an intentional and explicit rebuttal of Luttwakâs book [...]. A human being who understands the words and what they mean could immediately answer the question, but ChatGPT which doesnât, cannot
Studys, die mit KI schreiben, ohne vorher die Fakten selbst zu ermitteln und hinterher das Ergebnis zu prĂŒfen, schieĂen sich und der Zukunft akademischer QualitĂ€t in den FuĂ.