ChatGPT hallucinates fake but plausible scientific citations at a staggering rate, study finds
"MacDonald found that a total of 32.3% of the 300 citations generated by ChatGPT were hallucinated. Despite being fabricated, these hallucinated citations were constructed with elements that appeared legitimate — such as real authors who are recognized in their respective fields, properly formatted DOIs, and references to legitimate peer-reviewed journals."
#AI #ArtificialIntelligence #ChatGPT #LLM #Science #Research #DOI #Fake #Citations #Academia #Academic #Academics @science @ai
#Image attribution: Madhav-Malhotra-003, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons. Page URL: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Artificial_Intelligence_Word_Cloud.png
@bibliolater
Would be interested to see how well Scopus's AI product does in comparison. I haven't spent a lot of time with it, but have not yet seen false citations.
@NearerAndFarther @science @ai
Am I right in thinking it is behind a paywall and not accessible to the general public?
@NearerAndFarther I found a similar situation as to what you described.
@bibliolater
Short answer is yes. You at least need institutional Scopus access, but it does not seem to currently be an additional cost/subscription.
What's kind of weird is that it doesn't always show up. If you go to Scopus, right above the default search bar there is *sometimes* a button for "Scopus Ai". It doesn't seem to be browser specific. I'm thinking they are doing a very slow rollout, but can't tell exactly what the conditions of access are.