Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

False claims in a widely-cited paper

statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 181 posts

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#101

Post by zahlman »

ANarrativeApe wrote: post #87

Stop buying from/submitting to discredited publishers.

Some problems with that: "discredited" isn't a binary; memes (in the original sense) from papers circulate easily even if nobody pays the publishers (the problem is arguably even worse, because people will read abstracts for free and distort the claims further); there might not be higher quality alternatives.

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#102

Post by Pay08 »

bonesss wrote: post #85
rectang wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brandolini's Bullshit Asymmetry Principle is the adage for our age: > The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law

I’m cautiously optimistic that LLMs have a role in addressing that asymmetry to the side of good faith actors. Gish galloping bad faith trolls aren’t new. LLMs shape their BS into fluffy BS that isn’t particularly more effective. But now, We Have The Technology, refuting a pile of poo semi-accurately should be cheap (or at least getting cheaper). I don’t need an LLM on my phone that can do tax law in Georgia the coun…

> LLMs shape their BS into fluffy BS that isn’t particularly more effective.

But does take longer to disprove.

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#103

Post by applfanboysbgon »

bonesss wrote: post #85
rectang wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brandolini's Bullshit Asymmetry Principle is the adage for our age: > The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law

I’m cautiously optimistic that LLMs have a role in addressing that asymmetry to the side of good faith actors. Gish galloping bad faith trolls aren’t new. LLMs shape their BS into fluffy BS that isn’t particularly more effective. But now, We Have The Technology, refuting a pile of poo semi-accurately should be cheap (or at least getting cheaper). I don’t need an LLM on my phone that can do tax law in Georgia the coun…

This is a horrendous take. The only thing this is going to do / is already doing is increasing people's creation of their own reality bubble. LLMs are not some source of objective truth, they will inevitability lean towards reinforcing either (1) prompter's position, (2) the model trainer's position, or (3) the statistically average position, none of which are guaranteed to be logically correct. But people do take them as objective truth, so now we have a bunch of fucking morons going around saying "see, ChatGPT says so, I'm right!".

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#104

Post by fergie »

As somebody who has spent a bit of time in academia, I have often been slightly alarmed by some of the research (and opinon) that comes out of business schools. One thing is that it is often unsubstantiated and just plain wrong, another is that it often seems like the authors kind of know it, almost as if they are intentionally pandering to a lowbrow/midwit audience, and they expect everybody else to be in on the game. Its mystifying.

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#105

Post by tovej »

shrubby wrote: post #91
tovej wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say it's not left v. right, but it sure sounds like you think the right is what's causing inequality. Which I agree with.

I consider "this" right to be moral in a different way. Now the right all around the world is hijacked by narcissistic greed that punishes any voicing of conservative moral. In the US some republicans are daring to challenge the extreme narcissistic greed and a lot more are thinking about this privately. I also mentioned the other dichotomies and perhaps the "right" could be hopelessness and the the "left" false hope…

You're still making a leftist argument here, even if you end up dismissing the left as "corrupt" without pointing to anything specific.

Maybe you have some personal difficulty identifying with the left? You're not wrong in your characterizations, you just seem to be using different labels to me.

Maybe this is a US thing? Because there barely is a left wing in US politics. Democrats are right wing, for one.

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#107

Post by Pay08 »

jasonfarnon wrote: post #31
stinkbeetle wrote: post #20

[flagged]

When was this golden age of western civilization again? like 10 years ago, are you suggesting we were in this golden age? I mean, the paper this link is discussing is from 2014, so I guess it was more like 15 years ago that the golden age sunsetted?

The golden age of western civilisation was n - 5 years ago, where n is the year the speaker got their first job.

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#108

Post by anshulbasia27 »

The correction policy is the tell. If your journal's correction process requires the person who was wrong to initiate it, you haven't built a correction processs you've built a complaint resolution process that defaults to 'no complaint, no problem.' Medicine figured this out the hard way after thalidomide. Somehow management academia looked at that history and decided it didn't apply to them...

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#110

Post by throw310822 »

There's a simple rule of thumb that seems obvious to me but is widely ignored: we should be highly skeptical of any finding that claims an agreements between facts and ethical values- or between what is and what we think should be. Reality is absolutely orthogonal to our values, which makes any coincidence between the two extremely suspicious.
Post reply on HN