In what will likely be a litany of generative-model-themed arXiv submissions celebrating April the 1st, we evaluate the capacity of state-of-the-art transformer models to create a paper detailing the detection of a Pulsar Wind Nebula with a non-existent Imaging Atmospheric Cherenkov Telescope (IACT) Array. We do this to evaluate the ability of such models to interpret astronomical observations and sources based on language information alone, and to assess potential means by which fraudulently generated scientific papers could be identified during peer review (given that reliable generative model watermarking has yet to be deployed for these tools). We conclude that our jobs as astronomers are safe for the time being. From this point on, prompts given to ChatGPT and Stable Diffusion are shown in orange, text generated by ChatGPT is shown in black, whereas analysis by the (human) authors is in blue.
翻译:能够把伽马射线天体物理学家取代的人工智能吗?
在这篇文章中,我们评估了最先进的转换器模型的能力,生成一篇论文,描述使用不存在的成像大气切伦科夫望远镜(IACT)阵列探测脉冲星风星云的情况。我们这样做是为了评估这种模型仅依靠语言信息来解释天文观测和源的能力,并评估在同行评审过程中如何识别欺诈性生成的科学论文的潜在方法(鉴于这些工具尚未部署可靠的产生模型水印)。我们得出结论,我们作为天文学家的工作目前是安全的。从此处开始,ChatGPT和Stable Diffusion给出的提示显示为橙色,由ChatGPT生成的文本显示为黑色,而由(人类)作者进行的分析则为蓝色。