Grammar Girl here. I'm In Jan Fogarty, and today I'm here with Abigail Eisenstadt, a science writer at Science Magazine.

And I am really interested in speaking with her today because they did a study on AI writing that was much more expansive than what I see most people doing.

You know, I see people give chat to be a try once or twice and, you know, form their opinion

about it. But as good science people do, they did a methodical test. And we're going to hear

all about it today, what they found that it can and can't do, and what it means for the

future. Abigail, thanks so much for being here. I'm happy to be. Thank you for inviting me.

Yeah. So can you describe for people sort of what the science writers of science did?

Yeah. So we are a press package team and we send out summaries to reporters on a newsletter each Sunday.

And what we put in that newsletter is 250 to 350 words of a news brief, essentially.

And so these are summaries that go out.

There's usually five on average.

And what we wanted to do is we wanted to see if Chad GPT Plus could emulate our

specific style. And so our style is pretty typical for a news pyramid, whereas typically for a

pyramid, you would expect the most important sentence to be actually at the bottom. So most important

sentence at the top, then we do the background, then we do the bottom. So most important sentence at the top,

then we do the background, then we do the methods, then we do a conclusion. And we wanted to see

if chatypt could emulate that essentially. And as well as science writers, we have to be very

careful about the word choices we use because we don't want to say groundbreaking, a new,

you know, first of its kind study,

all science is built on the shoulders of other science. So you can't truly say anything as novel.

You have to maintain context and whatever you do. So each week, we had ChatGPT analyze two papers

that the writers on my team, including myself, would nominate. And we compared

...