Comment

You don’t. AI will lead you astray.

Reading it and paraphrasing is ok if you get stuck. But if you use it before thinking, you won’t get to thinking and write a piece of shit.

source

Sort:hotnew top

WalrusDragonOnABike@reddthat.com ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Its just an intro. Who cares if its shit? Just need words there that sound like the author wrote them because its expected in case someone accidentally reads it instead of skipping it as usual.

source
- phdepressed@sh.itjust.works ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  There’ll always be someone new to the field who does actually have to read the intro. I read a stuff outside of my field all the time and I rely on the intro to not have to go find a review just to broadly understand a given paper.
  
  source
  - WalrusDragonOnABike@reddthat.com ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Can’t say the intro has ever been particularly useful, even if new to the field. If the methods aren’t detailed enough to understand the methods, then you are going to have to look elsewhere. The intro isn’t going to have that information. If you want a general summary of the field, a dedicated review is far far better than scientists trying to fill space to get to the science.
    
    source
    phdepressed@sh.itjust.works ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    When a paper is far enough outside of my field I’m not going to be knowledgeable enough to critique methods. I’m not “new to the field” in the sense that I’m starting research in that area. Just thought the title was interesting/cool and I want to know a little bit more about the specifics. I don’t actually care about the field enough to study it (if I did I’d look for a review). So I’m not trying to understand the field but the just the paper(broadly). Why is the thing they study important? How did they (supposedly) come to their hypothesis? Just how badly is a news report overreaching what the source states? Etc.
    
    source