Exploring AI Research Tools (ChatGPT, Elicit, SciSpace)

[@DrLyndonWalker]

Get 40% off with SciSpace annual premium with code DrWalker or 20% off the monthly plan with code Lyndon20

[@giboncebarnabas9667]

Thanx for sharing these tools Dr. I was only family with chatGPT and Elicit but the other one I didn't come across with it only in your video

[@MicahMelnyk]

at 4:05, I think it looked at the top 4 papers, realized two were the same, and then summarized the three separate papers. Impressed if that is the case.

[@TheSGPhoenix]

nice comparison and good to see a researcher giving his opinion on the results!

[@monicanguata6023]

Thanks for sharing, thanks for comments guys. Now I know what to look out for

[@k.h.p.9862]

THANKS! Extremely useful information in this video, especially the part about SciSpace, an AI tool I've never heard of until now. Much appreciated!!

[@FaizalKasim_UNG]

Thank you very much, what you compared is what I was need

[@chilumbakbwalya]

Great insight here Doc. Thank you so much for sharing.

[@erfuniti3570]

thank you for comparison. That really helped.

[@JavaScriptJolt]

You left out a lot of SciSpace’s capabilities. If you upload a paper, you can ask questions about it, such as “What are the limitations of the study?” I’ve compared it to the paper, and it is spot on.

[@DrLyndonWalker]

I definitely need to come back to both for more detailed videos

[@DrRaikwarstudio]

Sir what about plagrism in summary that generated by these applications

[@DrLyndonWalker]

I'm not 100% sure what you mean. If you mean, are you plagiarizing if you just copy and paste their summary, then the answer is yes - you are presenting someone/something else's work as your own. If you mean do elicit and scispace plagiarize, I think it's less clear. If you do a Google search on one of their summaries you will find they generally aren't a copy of any existing content (in my experience at least).

[@manoranjanbiswal7585]

how can write with proper reference by ai engine

[@andyslater5041]

Awesome. Thank you Dr Walker!

[@khinsandimyintlay5885]

when we use elicit or scispace' summarized abstract, it can be plagiarized or not?

[@DrLyndonWalker]

I'm not 100% sure what you mean. If you mean, are you plagiarizing if you just copy and paste their summary, then the answer is yes - you are presenting someone/something else's work as your own. If you mean do elicit and scispace plagiarize, I think it's less clear. If you do a Google search on one of their summaries you will find they generally aren't a copy of any existing content (in my experience at least).

[@smeatona]

You didn’t really push Elicit at all .. there’s more than a dozen question types that you can ask of all of the retrieved papers, not just the summary which appears by default, and that allows you to explore the papers, as in to see which of the set of questions can be answered automatically by the generative text answers for each paper. It is worth your while re-examining Elicit, scroll down the question bank on the left side of the screen and select some of them, and no, I have no connection or interest in Elicit, I just want to see these AI tools given a fair airing. Thanks for posting the video.

[@DrLyndonWalker]

Absolutely. I should do a follow up with more detail. I think they have made improvements since I shot that video too.

[@lucacollina1597]

I am starting a PhD programme and for what i have seen and already experienced while watching the video ELICIT is good to map papers and scan using questions the matrix of exported papers 2. Scispace... mmm to analyse a particular paper 3. GPT not at all. I was wondering where i can find a tool that can scan a book?

[@DrLyndonWalker]

GPT can be good for brainstorming ideas and summarizing things. I'm definitely misusing it here. There are phone apps that can scan pages but it's pretty clunky. All the best for the phd

[@lucacollina1597]

@@DrLyndonWalker Thanks for your suggestions. I would like to ask how i can perform a bibliometric analysis using the new tools, if i can;t have access to EBESCO and other recognised global libraries?

[@victormayowa7989]

ChatPDF

[@lucacollina1597]

@@victormayowa7989 How is related chatpdf with my question earlier?

[@victormayowa7989]

Maybe I misconstrued your question. If you've tried it and it didn't give you the solution you expected, then I misunderstood you

[@ritwikbalo5692]

Very helpful. Thanks

[@coopernik]

I feel that you did not give elicit a fair testing. It really shines once you give some input. There are filtering options, you can add keywords, find more like starred. It’s not surprising that the first results are not that impressive

[@franciarriagadaM]

Thanks for the video! Is Elicit a free tool?

[@DrLyndonWalker]

Yes, the version I was using is free (although there might be a paid tier too)

[@franciarriagadaM]

@@DrLyndonWalker thanks!

[@ydherdn]

Thank You

[@kingsolomon0]

Good work

[@WagesOfDestruction]

I did a test on my stuff, chatgpt came out best, but it does not give references.

[@peterbarrett5496]

O good now I can just put chatgpt in the bibliography

[@borisbadinoff1291]

Not much sense in comparing tools that have different purposes. ChatGPT is neither a search engine nor a database. It was trained on a vast amount of content to generate 175 billion parameters, ie, strings of numbers, which it uses to determine what would be the best word to write after the previous one. Conversational bots such as ChatGPT "don't know what they know". If you ask, ChatGPT will tell you that its output should not be relied upon if you need factual accuracy or up to date information (GPT-3 models do not go beyond 2021). Of course it will produce accurate output many, many times, but that's only a by-product of its training on large language models. However, you could take your article and ask ChatGPT to turn into a children's book, or a sci-fi movie, and you'll be surprised.

[@saumaydudeja7423]

MBTI ain't garbage fam

[@DrLyndonWalker]

100% garbage. It fails every requirement of a psychometric instrument. kzbin.info/www/bejne/aJSckKqBgcl8pM0