111–120 of 442 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely brutal case of engineering brain here. Real "guns don't kill people, people kill people" stuff.
If you were to wager a guess, what do you think my views on gun rights are?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll continue calling them hallucinations. That's a much more fitting term when you account for the reasonableness of people who believe them. There's also equally a huge breadth of different types of errors that don't pattern match well into, "made up bullshit" the same way calling them hallucinations do. There's no need to introduce that ambiguity when discussing something narrow. there's nothing wrong with anthrop…
Given that an (incompetent or even malicious) human put their names(s) to this stuff, “bullshit” is an even better and fitting anthropomorphization
sufficiently advance some competences indistinguishable from actual malice.... and thus should be treated the same
Can we just call them "lies" and "fabrications" which is what they are? If I write the same, you will call them "made up citations" and "academic dishonesty". One can use AI to help them write without going all the way to having it generate facts and citations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve reviewed a lot of papers, I don’t consider it the reviewers responsibility to manually verify all citations are real. If there was an unusual citation that was relied on heavily for the basis of the work, one would expect it to be checked. Things like broad prior work, you’d just assume it’s part of background. The reviewer is not a proofreader, they are checking the rigour and relevance of the work, which does…
> The reviewer is not a proofreader, they are checking the rigour and relevance of the work, which does not rest heavily on all of the references in a document. I've always assumed peer review is similar to diff review. Where I'm willing to sign my name onto the work of others. If I approve a diff/pr and it takes down prod. It's just as much my fault, no? > They are also assuming good faith. I can only relate this to…
1. A patch is self-contained and applies to a codebase you have just as much access to as the author. A paper, on the other hand, is just the tip of the iceberg of research work, especially if there is some experiment or data collection involved. The reviewer does not have access to, say, videos of how the data was collected (and even if they did, they don't have the time to review all of that material).
2. The software is also self-contained. That's "prodcution". But a scientific paper does not necessarily aim to represent scientific consensus, but a finding by a particular team of researchers. If a paper's conclusions are wrong, it's expected that it will be refuted by another paper.
If a carpenter builds a crappy shelf “because” his power tools are not calibrated correctly - that’s a crappy carpenter, not a crappy tool. If a scientist uses an LLM to write a paper with fabricated citations - that’s a crappy scientist. AI is not the problem, laziness and negligence is. There needs to be serious social consequences to this kind of thing, otherwise we are tacitly endorsing it.
I'm an industrial electrician. A lot of poor electrical work is visible only to a fellow electrician, and sometimes only another industrial electrician. Bad technical work requires technical inspectors to criticize. Sometimes highly skilled ones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is true, but here the equivalent situation is someone using a greek question mark (";") instead of a semicolon (";"), and you as a code reviewer are only expected to review the code visually and are not provided the resources required to compile the code on your local machine to see the compiler fail. Yes in theory you can go through every semicolon to check if it's not actually a greek question mark; but one as…
> This is true, but here the equivalent situation is someone using a greek question mark (";") instead of a semicolon (";"), No it's not. I think you're trying to make a different point, because you're using an example of a specific deliberate malicious way to hide a token error that prevents compilation, but is visually similar. > and you as a code reviewer are only expected to review the code visually and are not p…
breaking the analogy beyond the point where it is useful by introducing non-generalising specifics is not a useful argument. Otherwise I can counter your more specific non-generalising analogy by introducing little green aliens sabotaging your imaginary CI with the same ease and effect.
If a carpenter builds a crappy shelf “because” his power tools are not calibrated correctly - that’s a crappy carpenter, not a crappy tool. If a scientist uses an LLM to write a paper with fabricated citations - that’s a crappy scientist. AI is not the problem, laziness and negligence is. There needs to be serious social consequences to this kind of thing, otherwise we are tacitly endorsing it.