Prism

Post by bogdan » Wed, Jan 28, 2026, 5:55 AM UTC

_bohm wrote: post #270

alphazard wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I once took a philosophy class where an essay assignment had a minimum citation count. Obviously ridiculous, since a philosophical argument should follow a chain of reasoning starting at stated axioms. Citing a paper to defend your position is just an appeal to authority (a fallacy that they teach you about in the same class). The citation requirement allowed the class to fulfill a curricular requirement that student…

Huh? It's quite sensible to make reference to someone else's work when writing a philosophy paper, and there are many ways to do so that do not amount to an appeal to authority.

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jan 28, 2026, 6:08 AM UTC

doodlesdev wrote: post #311

Springtime wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Post-LLM World: Fighting Digital Garbage https://archive.org/details/paper_20260127/mode/2up This appears to just be the output of LLMs itself? It credits GPT-5.2 and Gemini 3 exclusively as authors, has a public domain license (appropriate for AI output) and is only several paragraphs in length.

Which proves its own points! Absolutely genius! The cost asymmetry of producing and checking for garbage truly is becoming a problem in the recent years, with the advent of LLMs and generative AI in general.

Post by bloppe » Wed, Jan 28, 2026, 6:14 AM UTC

willturman wrote: post #205

bloppe wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if there's a way to tax the frivolous submissions. There could be a submission fee that would be fully reimbursed iff the submission is actually accepted for publication. If you're confident in your paper, you can think of it as a deposit. If you're spamming journals, you're just going to pay for the wasted time. Maybe you get reimbursed for half as long as there are no obvious hallucinations.

If the penalty for a crime is a fine, then that law exists only for the lower class In other words, such a structure would not dissuade bad actors with large financial incentives to push something through a process that grants validity to a hypothesis. A fine isn't going to stop tobacco companies from spamming submissions that say smoking doesn't cause lung cancer or social media companies from spamming submissions t…

Post by parentheses » Wed, Jan 28, 2026, 6:16 AM UTC

JBorrow wrote: post #32

From my perspective as a journal editor and a reviewer these kinds of tools cause many more problems than they actually solve. They make the 'barrier to entry' for submitting vibed semi-plausible journal articles much lower, which I understand some may see as a benefit. The drawback is that scientific editors and reviewers provide those services for free, as a community benefit. One example was a submission their und…

Post by unixzii » Wed, Jan 28, 2026, 6:32 AM UTC