explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3126: Disclaimer

2025-08-09T09:01:07Z

ThatNerdyHylian:

Is this related to the ChatGPT 5 release
: Probably. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 19:30, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Was anyone tempted to ask ChatGPT to write an explanation of this comic? [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 19:30, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Considering who Tom Bombadil is, anything less than a dissertation-length discussion is incomplete. PS: The captcha wanted me to select pictures that contained parking meters, but it showed what looked like a mailbox. Maybe parking meters look like mailboxes in the parts of Middle Earth that I haven't visited yet. [[Special:Contributions/64.201.132.210|64.201.132.210]] 20:23, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Am I the only one wondering if Randall actually made such a post? It would be fun to find but without knowing what LOTR boards he frequents and his screen name, it would be pretty difficult. [[Special:Contributions/47.248.235.170|47.248.235.170]] 20:44, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Pat

Who ''doesn't'' use the word 'delve'? I've used it {{w|One, Two, Buckle My Shoe|since I was a child}}! [[Special:Contributions/92.23.2.228|92.23.2.228]] 20:59, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Once or twice, I've heard a Reddit reader on YouTube claim that a story was probably written by ChatGPT because of things like "used em dashes" and "flows so smoothly that I didn't make any mistakes while recording, while most stories by humans make me glitch once or twice". Um. Is it ''bad'' to use punctuation correctly? To polish writing so that it flows smoothly, as story-telling often should? [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 21:07, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
:Hyphens between spaces are [https://twitter.com/thiojoe/status/1947867455415783732 automatically converted to em dashes] when using modern versions of MS Word. [[Special:Contributions/104.28.205.246|104.28.205.246]] 22:27, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
::That's an en-dash; em-dashes are automatically created from two hyphens between words like--this[[User:ThatNerdyHylian|ThatNerdyHylian]] ([[User talk:ThatNerdyHylian|talk]]) 09:01, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

"Delve" is/was specifically a word considered a marker of ChatGPT. See https://news.fsu.edu/news/science-technology/2025/02/17/why-does-chatgpt-delve-so-much-fsu-researchers-begin-to-uncover-why-chatgpt-overuses-certain-words/ [[Special:Contributions/64.203.66.182|64.203.66.182]] 21:19, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
:Groundbreaking advancements in the realm of AI may indeed boast surprising and intricate compositions, showcasing a lexicon emphasising and underscoring its advanced comprehending of garnered language that surpasses what aligns with human usage. But I hope the team behind this paper delves into the possibility of false-positives.  [[Special:Contributions/92.23.2.228|92.23.2.228]] 21:54, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

:You're absolutely right—''delve'' has become emblematic of ChatGPT’s stylistic tendencies.
:
:Florida State University researchers Tom Juzek and Zina Ward conducted a study titled ''“Why Does ChatGPT ‘Delve’ So Much? Exploring the Source of Overrepresentation in Large Language Models.”'' This study, published in the January 2025 Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Linguistics, systematically identified words like '''“delve,” “intricate,”''' and '''“underscore”''' that have sharply increased in usage within scientific abstracts and are notably more common in ChatGPT outputs. They called these '''21 “focal words.”'''
:
:The researchers ruled out several potential causes—such as model architecture, training data, or algorithms—as primary drivers of this lexical overrepresentation. Their model testing suggested that '''Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF)''' may contribute to the pattern, though the results were mixed and partially inconclusive. Intriguingly, they found that human evaluators might respond differently to the word “delve” compared to other focal words.
:
:So yes—''delve'' is indeed one of the telltale markers that researchers have pinpointed for ChatGPT’s distinctive language usage.
:
:Would you like to explore more on how other focal words (like “intricate” or “underscore”) compare, or dive into the experimental methodology they used? [[Special:Contributions/104.28.205.246|104.28.205.246]] 22:35, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

3117: Replication Crisis

2025-07-18T22:49:38Z

ThatNerdyHylian: Fixed spacing (sorry this is my first edit)

{{comic
| number = 3117
| date = July 18, 2025
| title = Replication Crisis
| image = replication_crisis_2x.png
| imagesize = 367x492px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Maybe encouraging the publication of null results isn't enough--maybe we need a journal devoted to publishing results the study authors find personally annoying.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created recently. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

: [Megan, Ponytail, and Cueball are standing at a lectern. Ponytail is talking into the microphone.]
: Ponytail: In the early 2010s, researchers found that many major scientific results couldn't be reproduced.

: [Ponytail turns slightly to look around the room.]
: Ponytail: Over a decade into the replication crisis, we wanted to see if today's studies have become more robust.

: Ponytail: Unfortunately, our replication analysis has found exactly the same problems that those 2010s researchers did.

: [This panel shows a newspaper, with title "NEWS" surrounded by flourishes. There is a photo of the three researches at the lectern taking up about half the front page. The headline reads: "REPLICATION CRISIS SOLVED".]

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

3117: Replication Crisis

2025-07-18T22:48:14Z

ThatNerdyHylian: Added transcript

{{comic
| number = 3117
| date = July 18, 2025
| title = Replication Crisis
| image = replication_crisis_2x.png
| imagesize = 367x492px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Maybe encouraging the publication of null results isn't enough--maybe we need a journal devoted to publishing results the study authors find personally annoying.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created recently. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

[Megan, Ponytail, and Cueball are standing at a lectern. Ponytail is talking into the microphone.]
Ponytail: In the early 2010s, researchers found that many major scientific results couldn't be reproduced.
[Ponytail turns slightly to look around the room.]
Ponytail: Over a decade into the replication crisis, we wanted to see if today's studies have become more robust.
Ponytail: Unfortunately, our replication analysis has found exactly the same problems that those 2010s researchers did.
[This panel shows a newspaper, with title "NEWS" surrounded by flourishes. There is a photo of the three researches at the lectern taking up about half the front page. The headline reads: "REPLICATION CRISIS SOLVED".]

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>