"renal disappointment" yields even more papers, in all its awkwardness
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q=%22renal+disappointmen...
Research papers using "kidney disappointment" instead of "kidney failure"
31–40 of 177 posts
Re: Research papers using "kidney disappointment" instead of "kidney failure"
#32Nothing beats when, in a chemistry paper, AI paraphrased „the final solution” into „the mass killing of an ethnic group”. “Subsequently, 1 mL of the mass killing of an ethnic group was opposed to 20 mL of the skin sample and unprotected to light for 7 min.” From: https://bsky.app/profile/forbetterscience.bsky.social/post/3...
African American-tie dinner. Spin City 1996.
Re: Research papers using "kidney disappointment" instead of "kidney failure"
#33Re: Research papers using "kidney disappointment" instead of "kidney failure"
#34Well…it is a disappointment when your nephrons don’t work.
Re: Research papers using "kidney disappointment" instead of "kidney failure"
#35It seems like, particularly in scholarly works, we should cite AI contributions the same way we cite a third party, with similar consequences around plagiarism. If you’re copying AI whole hog, not quoting and citing it, and not catching basic failures. Is it really “your” work?
Re: Research papers using "kidney disappointment" instead of "kidney failure"
#36I accidentally did this myself not long ago. Like everyone else I'm tired of cookie banners so I had ChatGPT make a law against it, it used "act" in its version, I search-and-replaced it with "Law" before getting Claude to ratify it. Claude pointed out the search-and-replace replacement, oops. The conversation links are in my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48585778 and you can see Claude found these mistakes:
"
At some point an earlier find-and-replace swapped "act" for "Law" and garbled three real words. As written, the text says:
Section 1: "cookie-banner Lawions" — should be actions
Section 3(2)(b): "next ordinary feature update after enLawment" — should be enactment
Section 5(5): "a site-specific Law that the signal cannot satisfy" — should be act (or action)
These aren't stylistic quibbles; "Lawions" landing on the desks of four legal departments would cause real confusion about intent. The fix is a single reverse find-and-replace. With that correction, I'm comfortable signing.
"
Re: Research papers using "kidney disappointment" instead of "kidney failure"
#37Tortured phrases, clear signs of fraud or plagiarism: https://theconversation.com/problematic-paper-screener-trawl...
This should be the top comment. Thousands of retracted papers? More informative than just a Google Scholar search.
Re: Research papers using "kidney disappointment" instead of "kidney failure"
#38This is a really confusing one, since neither the "AI generated paper" nor "translation issue" explanations hold. I found [1], created all the way back in 2021, which seems to first introduce this "kidney disappointment" term, and I would have to assume that perhaps the authors preferred to translate it from their native language. LLMs did not exist in their current form in 2021, so couldn't have used it to write dow…
Never heard of a content spinner?
Re: Research papers using "kidney disappointment" instead of "kidney failure"
#39Re: Research papers using "kidney disappointment" instead of "kidney failure"
#40I accidentally did this myself not long ago. Like everyone else I'm tired of cookie banners so I had ChatGPT make a law against it, it used "act" in its version, I search-and-replaced it with "Law" before getting Claude to ratify it. Claude pointed out the search-and-replace replacement, oops. The conversation links are in my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48585778 and you can see Claude found the…
I’m having a hard time figuring out if this State of Utopia thing is tongue-in-cheek or serious.