The inverse Bananarama Conjecture

Like all tools, ChatGPT is best in experienced hands. Following the opening quote of this article, we term this the Bananarama Conjecture.

For some reason the enticingly titled ChatGPT for (Finance) research: The Bananarama Conjecture ended up in my feed. Finance is not something I usually follow, but I try to follow the ChatGPT hype.

What is the gist of the article? The authors recruited a panel of experts who where given the task of rating a research proposal generated by ChatGPT along different lines like usefulness, comprehensiveness, originality etc.. They then analyzed the expert judgements and came to the conclusion that ChatGPT generated passable (finance) research proposals.

They conclude by asking the question of how ChatGPT as new e-ResearchAssistant (in light of the probable benefit of alleviating the expenses of human research assistants) should be evaluated:

Is it proper to have such an advanced level of guidance and assistance, and still claim the produced research as one’s own?

Answering this question can be easily avoided by using ChatGPT in an inverse fashion. If your research proposal is similar to one generated by ChatGPT, then you might want to reconsider that proposal.

Categorized as hype

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *