Perhaps the author(s) were reprising Alan Sokal's seminal work?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
That and possibly https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/archive/scigen/
Scientists aghast at AI rat with genitals in peer-reviewed article
21–30 of 68 posts
Re: Scientists aghast at AI rat with genitals in peer-reviewed article
#22Perhaps the author(s) were reprising Alan Sokal's seminal work?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
Whether hoax or laziness, you have to pretty ballsy to submit that article with your name on it.
Re: Scientists aghast at AI rat with genitals in peer-reviewed article
#23Scientific publishing is a scam. So it is hardly surprising that one of the biggest scientific publishing houses was run by a crook (Robert Maxwell).
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-b...
Re: Scientists aghast at AI rat with genitals in peer-reviewed article
#24That second image reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo_encabulator
Re: Scientists aghast at AI rat with genitals in peer-reviewed article
#25Re: Scientists aghast at AI rat with genitals in peer-reviewed article
#26One 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.
Let's not forget that OpenAI has probably scraped that POS paper and added it to ChatGPT. Someone should ask it what "iollotte sserotgomar" is.
Also Note on the Mission Statement:
"Frontiers follows the guidelines and best practice recommendations published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Authors should refer to the author guidelines for full details.
Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology is member of the Committee on Publication Ethics."
Maybe COPE better get its ethics guidelines updated for AI.
Re: Scientists aghast at AI rat with genitals in peer-reviewed article
#27“Where do you buy this animal? Asking for a friend”
Re: Scientists aghast at AI rat with genitals in peer-reviewed article
#28Will 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?
The reviewers are cited as part of the publication:
Binsila B. Krishnan, National Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology (ICAR), India
Jingbo Dai, Northwestern Medicine, United States
Re: Scientists aghast at AI rat with genitals in peer-reviewed article
#29I 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
The reviewers' names are listed on the publisher's (Frontier) site [0, top right]
[0] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcell.2023.1339....
Re: Scientists aghast at AI rat with genitals in peer-reviewed article
#30The journal in which it appeared is a predatory journal with a good PR department. I hope this is the last nail in their coffin. If you see something published in a "Frontiers In" it's most likely rubbish. Only god knows what kind of peer review the article went through (if any), in the most optimistic case it was reviewed indeed by peers of the people who submitted an obvious AI generated article, probably they sre…
Frontiers In, more like Frontier Sin?