AI has already killed academia as we know it?
truths-and-loves.ghost.io
AI has already killed academia as we know it?
1–10 of 54 posts
Re: AI has already killed academia as we know it?
#2Solving the paper submission is easy. Just hold frontal interview where the submitter defends their paper. They can't create papers every day and still be knowledgeable about them in depth.
We are hurling to a reality where the only noteworthy metric is human to human validation.
Re: AI has already killed academia as we know it?
#3Solving the paper submission is easy. Just hold frontal interview where the submitter defends their paper. They can't create papers every day and still be knowledgeable about them in depth. We are hurling to a reality where the only noteworthy metric is human to human validation.
If a journal finds that it's getting more papers than peer reviewers are willing to go through, how does a more heavyweight, synchronous review process solve the problem? Many researchers already find peer review requests annoying, they're not going to agree to hold a bunch of video calls.
Re: AI has already killed academia as we know it?
#4How about we embrace the era of the superhuman?
Re: AI has already killed academia as we know it?
#5Solving the paper submission is easy. Just hold frontal interview where the submitter defends their paper. They can't create papers every day and still be knowledgeable about them in depth. We are hurling to a reality where the only noteworthy metric is human to human validation.
If a journal finds that it's getting more papers than peer reviewers are willing to go through, how does a more heavyweight, synchronous review process solve the problem? Many researchers already find peer review requests annoying, they're not going to agree to hold a bunch of video calls.
Big part of the annoyance is that journals demand basically free labor - while costing massive amount of money if you want to read them.
A review call might just end up being less work then reading a lot of slop papers.
Re: AI has already killed academia as we know it?
#6Solving the paper submission is easy. Just hold frontal interview where the submitter defends their paper. They can't create papers every day and still be knowledgeable about them in depth. We are hurling to a reality where the only noteworthy metric is human to human validation.
Paper reviews are traditionally blinded, so the reviewer doesn't know the authorship of the paper they're reading.
Re: AI has already killed academia as we know it?
#7How about we embrace the era of the superhuman?
It's not the era of the superman coming. It's the era of the sewers man.
Re: AI has already killed academia as we know it?
#8How about we embrace the era of the superhuman?
What superhuman? This system will never have a 99.99% accuracy based on its current prediction models and data input, neither is it a targeted to make us superhumans in the first place.
It still will need human supervision for corrections and if it doesn't it won't require humans to process further. Humans are not in the central picture of the future of AI.
Re: AI has already killed academia as we know it?
#9Flip the classroom, make students learn the material on their own (Using AI or whatever resources they want to use) and then in-classroom time is divided on working on problems (without AI assistance which can be controlled in this environment) and quizzes/exams (again without AI). We don't need lectures anymore, they are an incredibly ineffective way to learn.
Re: AI has already killed academia as we know it?
#10Flip the classroom, make students learn the material on their own (Using AI or whatever resources they want to use) and then in-classroom time is divided on working on problems (without AI assistance which can be controlled in this environment) and quizzes/exams (again without AI). We don't need lectures anymore, they are an incredibly ineffective way to learn.
I had some "reverse classroom" classes back in college, and it was the best kind of class for me. Read the papers on your own time before class, and spend class discussing and in tests.
It did, however, absolutely require everyone to prepare for every class. Some people complained a lot about this, which might be why this was not as popular as more common lectures.