i think i'm pretty much over

Sections/4-Tentations.tex

 
 % -----------------------Introduction
+
 \subsection{A real use case}
 \begin{frame}[fragile]
     \frametitle{Let's write a paper with a bing.com}
     \begin{block}{Major possible contributions}
     \begin{itemize}
-        \item<1,7> Chose a general research subject (novelty, literature)
+        \item<1,7> Choose a general research subject (novelty, literature)
         \item<2,7> Have a good idea (or many of them)
         \item<3,7> Implement your idea (experiment, code, etc) and get results
         \item<4,7> Analyze the results and determine if there is something new here
@@ -30,7 +31,7 @@
 \end{frame}
 
 \begin{frame}[fragile]
-    \frametitle{Chose a research topic}
+    \frametitle{Choose a research topic}
     \begin{block}{Question: "Give me 4 hot topics for LBM research"}
     \begin{itemize}
         \item<1> Turbulence modeling
@@ -52,18 +53,18 @@
 
 \begin{frame}[fragile]
     \frametitle{Help with novel ideas and novel methods}
-    \begin{block}{Question: Can you give me an idea on how to solve quantum fluid flow?}
+    \begin{block}{Question: Can you give me an idea on how to solve quantum fluid flows?}
     \begin{itemize}
         \item<1> "Sorry no."
         \item<2> Only based on already performed work
-        \item<2> Can only "create" something new by combining words...
-        \item<3> But gives only very generic and vague advice when pushed
-        \item<4> Ideas \textbf{are proposed with references} but are usually not even related to the field.
-        \item<5> Cannot propose actual design of complex experiments
-        \item<6> Writes \textbf{simple} codes, but mostly for simple and trivial tasks.
+        \item<3> Can only "create" something new by combining words...
+        \item<4> But gives only very generic and vague advice when pushed
+        \item<5> Ideas \textbf{are proposed with references} but are usually not even related to the field.
+        \item<6> Cannot propose actual design of complex experiments
+        \item<7> Writes \textbf{simple} codes, but mostly for simple and trivial tasks.
     \end{itemize}
     \end{block}
-    \only<7>{
+    \only<8>{
     \begin{block}{Potential problem?}
     \begin{itemize}
         \item Security and privacy of the prompts?
@@ -73,6 +74,28 @@
     }
 \end{frame}
 
+\begin{frame}[fragile]
+    \frametitle{Summarize old ideas for reuse}
+    \begin{block}{Problems}
+    \begin{itemize}
+        \item<1> We tend to believe generative models because they write nice sentences
+        \item<2> But generative models are not always right
+        \item<3> Generative models cannot give any source for the information it provides
+        \item<4> Therefore we must \textbf{ALWAYS} check whether the answers are correct
+        \item<5> Prerequisite: we must be experts already to be able to check or correctness or live with the risk of major errors
+    \end{itemize}
+    \end{block}
+    \only<2>{
+    \begin{block}{Yes but Wikipedia is the same!}
+    \begin{itemize}
+        \item<1> Well... Sorry but no
+        \item<2> Wikipedia has thousands of reviewers
+        \item<3> References can be found for most information on the Wikipedia pages 
+    \end{itemize}
+    \end{block}
+    }
+\end{frame}
+
 \begin{frame}[fragile]
     \frametitle{Data analysis}
     \begin{block}{Maybe an interest?}
@@ -157,10 +180,10 @@ plt.show()
 \end{frame}
 
 
-\subsection{Introduction}
+\subsection{Introduction / Conclusion}
 \begin{frame}[fragile]
-\frametitle{Introduction: Summary and highlights}
-        \begin{block}{Very hard}
+\frametitle{Introduction / Conclusion: Summary and highlights}
+        \begin{block}{Very hard: Derived from methods and results parts}
     \begin{itemize}
         \item<1> Most prompts allow for texts that are 2000 characters long
         \item<2> Difficult to summarize the complete paper with prompts this short
@@ -174,7 +197,7 @@ plt.show()
 \end{frame}
 
 \begin{frame}[fragile]
-\frametitle{Write a bibliography on quantum fluid flow with LBM}
+\frametitle{Write a bibliography on quantum fluid flows with LBM}
     \includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{Figures/biblio.png}
         \begin{block}{Looks cool right?}
     \begin{itemize}
@@ -186,30 +209,67 @@ plt.show()
         \end{block}
 \end{frame}
 
+\begin{frame}[fragile]
+\frametitle{Practical concerns}
+\begin{itemize}
+    \item<1> Reading (and have a deep understanding) of papers is integral part of our job (AI cannot read or us)
+    \item<1> Summarizing and highlighting is of major importance (convey meaning to others)
+    \item<1> Homogeneous style helps others understanding
+    \item<2> Except if papers are only read and written by other AIs
+\end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
 
+\subsection{Abstract}
+\begin{frame}[fragile]
+\frametitle{Write an abstract}
+        \begin{block}{Finally a good use?}
+    \begin{itemize}
+        \item<1> Given the title of the paper
+        \item<1> And bullet points with the major contributions
+        \item<2> Good results can be achieved! Hooray!
+    \end{itemize}
+        \end{block}
+\end{frame}
 
 \frametitle{For some more fun}
 \begin{frame}[fragile]
 \frametitle{Translations}
     \frametitle{From french to english}
-    La méthode de boltzmann sur réseau est une méthode novatrice de simulation de mécanique des fluides computationnelle qui existe depuis une vingtaine d'années.
+    La m\'ethode de boltzmann sur r\'eseau est une m\'ethode novatrice de simulation de m\'ecanique des fluides computationnelle qui existe depuis une vingtaine d'ann\'ees.
     \vskip0.5truecm
     \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figures/translation.png}
     \only<2>{
-        \vskip0.25truecm
+        \vskip0.1truecm
         \textbf{I always knew french was language that allowed to express ideas in a very condensed manner!}
     }
 \end{frame}
 
+\begin{frame}[fragile]
+    \frametitle{For points (1,1), (2,2), ..., (10, 10) draw a scatter plot}
+    \only<1>{
+        How it started\\
+        \includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{Figures/numbers.png}
+    }
+    \only<2>{
+        How it continued\\
+        \includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{Figures/python.png}
+    }
+    \only<3>{
+        How it ended\\
+        \includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{Figures/points.png}
+    }
+\end{frame}
+
 \subsection{Closing remarks}
 \begin{frame}[fragile]
 \frametitle{When to use a generative AI}
     \begin{block}{My two cents as an old person}
     \begin{itemize}
-        \item Any boring task that can be checked in \textbf{seconds} or that has zero impact
+        \item Any boring task that can be checked within \textbf{seconds} or that has zero impact
         \item Write the cover letter (or rebuttals)
         \item Shorten small paragraphs
-        \item Rephrase sentences
+        \item Rephrase sentences and keeping the same meaning
+        \item Write very short code snippets
         \item \textbf{Please: never for doing mathematical tasks...}
     \end{itemize}
     \end{block}
@@ -217,49 +277,30 @@ plt.show()
 
 
 \begin{frame}[fragile]
-\frametitle{Well this is more philosophical}
+\frametitle{A bit more meta-physical questions}
     \begin{block}{Why it's not a good idea?}
     \begin{itemize}
-        \item Plagiarism? Just cite the generative AI used as the source with date, but output is inherently non-reproducible!
-        \item Ethics? Generative AIs are "an average" of other people's work (impossible to find the original source)
+        \item Plagiarism? Just cite the generative AI used as the source with date, but output is inherently non-reproducible!\\
+            We should also provide the exact sequence of prompts used and it would not be enough!
+        \item Ethics? Generative AIs are "an average" of other people's work (impossible to find the original source)\\
+            What if you copy-pasted an exact sentence from another author without knowing it?
         \item Intellectual property? Who is the "owner" of the content produced?
-        \item Skills evolution? To use AI one must be expert in its field, by using AI one becomes less an expert.
+        \item Skills evolution? To use AI one must be expert in its field, by using AI one becomes less an expert\\
+            Each time you use an AI you make \textbf{zero} effort (no rephrasing, no creativity, etc)
+        \item Energy concerns? Each AI powered request consumes 10-20x a google search (70-140g of CO2)
     \end{itemize}
     \end{block}
 \end{frame}
 
+\subsection{Disclaimer}
 \begin{frame}[fragile]
-\frametitle{Believing chatGPT on what  it says}
-    Multiple examples on times it doesn't work
+    \begin{block}{Possible critics to this presentation}
     \begin{itemize}
-        \item Rabbit's eggs
-        \item Definition of a lozenge
-        \item Students using it for a base code
+    \item But $<$Insert other model here$>$ gives better results
+    \item You are biased against generative AIs
+    \item AIs are just  algorithms, we can trust them
+    \item 
     \end{itemize}
-    \vspace{20pt}
-    
-    Not just an hallucination!
-    \begin{itemize}
-        \item As seen before, this is the expected behaviour
-        \item chatGPT generates convincing texts
-        \item Generates what an average person would write about it
-    \end{itemize}
-    
-\end{frame}
-
-\begin{frame}[fragile]
-    \frametitle{For a given set of points draw the scatter plot}
-    \only<1>{
-        How it started\\
-        \includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{Figures/numbers.png}
-    }
-    \only<2>{
-        How it continued\\
-        \includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{Figures/python.png}
-    }
-    \only<3>{
-        How it ended\\
-        \includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{Figures/points.png}
-    }
+    \end{block}
 \end{frame}