Live data from Hacker News

Scientists aghast at AI rat with genitals in peer-reviewed article

arstechnica.com

11–20 of 68 posts

Re: Scientists aghast at AI rat with genitals in peer-reviewed article

#12

One of the things that worry me the most about AI is that it enables some of the most sloppiest and laziest operators to become even more sloppy and lazy.

The future is probably mediocre. Things that are "good enough" replace real craftsmanship.

Re: Scientists aghast at AI rat with genitals in peer-reviewed article

#14
post #9

I saw the picture get posted on social media earlier today, and I took one look at it and thought "this looks like something from the Cursed AI Facebook group I'm in" before I read the post accompanying it and saw them saying it was published in a peer-reviewed journal. How could this possibly pass peer review?

> How could this possibly pass peer review?

they've probably outsourced that to generative AI too

Re: Scientists aghast at AI rat with genitals in peer-reviewed article

#15

Will the people that did the peer reviews be sanctioned in any way? Seems so blatant that it doesn't look like it was actually reviewed at all.

To me, this is the real question. One of the purposes of the peer-review is to validate and verify results, which was clearly not done to a great extent here. Perhaps the reviewers were also using some type of AI?

Perhaps the reviewer was an AI. Which gives a new spin to 'peer review'.

Re: Scientists aghast at AI rat with genitals in peer-reviewed article

#16
post #9

I saw the picture get posted on social media earlier today, and I took one look at it and thought "this looks like something from the Cursed AI Facebook group I'm in" before I read the post accompanying it and saw them saying it was published in a peer-reviewed journal. How could this possibly pass peer review?

Crassness breeds clicks, and that's all they want.

Re: Scientists aghast at AI rat with genitals in peer-reviewed article

#17
Not only that. The JAK "pathway" is complete gibberish. The third figure is a pool of random spheres in "differentiation" steps. The whole Frontiers publishing group is widely seen in academia as worthless, however, since most promotion committees just count the number of publications no matter where they may be, they continue to publish anything and make bank.

Re: Scientists aghast at AI rat with genitals in peer-reviewed article

#18
post #14
post #9

I saw the picture get posted on social media earlier today, and I took one look at it and thought "this looks like something from the Cursed AI Facebook group I'm in" before I read the post accompanying it and saw them saying it was published in a peer-reviewed journal. How could this possibly pass peer review?

> How could this possibly pass peer review? they've probably outsourced that to generative AI too

I wouldn't be surprised. I've seen people say that instead of reading articles now, they just open up ChatGPT and say "Summarize the important parts of the following article for me".

My experience is that ChatGPT is laughably wrong when it comes to generating any kind of factual information. At best, it's good for feeding ridiculous prompts into it and trying to see what the most cursed thing you can get to spit out is so you can have a laugh.

Re: Scientists aghast at AI rat with genitals in peer-reviewed article

#19

I like the comment beneath the article: "I'm mentally tormented by the fact that the rat is casting his gaze upwards, to heights not even revealed in the image."

Probably up to the pecker's tip. Geometrically correct if not anatomically so.

Re: Scientists aghast at AI rat with genitals in peer-reviewed article

#20
post #12

One of the things that worry me the most about AI is that it enables some of the most sloppiest and laziest operators to become even more sloppy and lazy.

The future is probably mediocre. Things that are "good enough" replace real craftsmanship.

Hence the washing machine that dies 1 week after the warranty expires. Yay for capitalism!
Post reply on HN