<story><title>Now ChatGPT is being (mis)used to do PeerReview</title><url>https://mstdn.science/@ukrio/110100752908161183</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>primitivesuave</author><text>This is exactly what people should fear about the AI future. A lazy judge, parole officer, loan reviewer, school counselor, or in this case - peer reviewer, delegating decisions that affect human lives to a black-box algorithm.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>smcn</author><text>I&amp;#x27;ve seen people use ChatGPT to make investment decisions. &amp;quot;AI says that $X is about to squeeze&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;AI says the market is going to crash on X&amp;quot;. A huge lack of knowledge as well as an overconfidence about what this tech &amp;#x2F;actually&amp;#x2F; is.&lt;p&gt;This is going to be disruptive in the worst possible way.</text></comment>
<story><title>Now ChatGPT is being (mis)used to do PeerReview</title><url>https://mstdn.science/@ukrio/110100752908161183</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>primitivesuave</author><text>This is exactly what people should fear about the AI future. A lazy judge, parole officer, loan reviewer, school counselor, or in this case - peer reviewer, delegating decisions that affect human lives to a black-box algorithm.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>ratorx</author><text>People are already a blackbox algorithm (to some degree). I think if there was personal accountability and an appeals process (which there needs to be to deal with human shittiness anyway), then it makes no difference right?&lt;p&gt;The key thing is that if the domain is appropriately fuzzy, and a human vs non-human decision is indistinguishable, then it shouldn’t matter. If it isn’t, then you don’t really need the AI.&lt;p&gt;I think the key thing here is that people should not be able to blame the AI for bad decisions. Responsibility should be on whoever decided to delegate the decision.</text></comment>