471–480 of 543 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is going to be the concrete block which finally breaks the back of the academic peer review system Exactly, and I think this is good news. Let's break it so we can fix at last. Nothing will happen until a real crisis emerges.
Disrupting a system without good proposals for its replacement sounds like a recipe for disaster.
I genuinely don’t see scientific journals and conferences continuing to last in this new world of autonomous agents, at least the same way that they used to be. As other top level posters have indicated the review portion of this is the limiting factor unless journal reviewers decide to utilize entirely automated review process, then they’re not gonna be able to keep up with what will increasingly be the most and bes…
"So whoever figures out the automated reviewer that can actually tell fact from fiction, is going to win this game." Errr sure. Sounds easy when you write it down. I highly doubt such a thing will ever exist.
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…
GenAI largely seems like a DDoS on free resources. The effort to review this stuff is now massively more than the effort to "create" it, so really what is the point of even submitting it, the reviewer could have generated it themself. Seeing it in software development where coworkers are submitting massive PRs they generated but hardly read or tested. Shifting the real work to the PR review. I'm not sure what the fin…
I've seen this complaint a lot of places, but the solution to me seems obvious. Massive PRs should be rejected. This was true before AI was a thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm scared that this type of thing is going to do to science journals what AI-generated bug reports is doing to bug bounties. We're truly living in a post-scarcity society now, except that the thing we have an abundance of is garbage, and it's drowning out everything of value.
There's this thing where all the thought leaders in software engineering ask "What will change about building about building a business when code is free" and while, there are some cool things, I've also thought, like it could have some pretty serious negative externalities? I think this question is going to become big everywhere - business, science, etc. which is like - Ok, you have all this stuff, but do is it valu…
Now that the code is cheaper (not free quite yet) skills further up the abstraction chain become more valuable.
Programming and design skills are less valuable. However, you still have to know what to build: product and UX skills are more valuable. You still have to know how to build it: software architect skills are more valuable.
I'm dumbfounded they chose the name of the infamous NSA mass surveillance program revealed by Snowden in 2013. And even more so that there is just one other comment among 320 pointing this out [1]. Has the technical and scientific community in the US already forgotten this huge breach of trust? This is especially jarring at a time where the US is burning its political good-will at unprecedented rate (at least unprece…
>I'm dumbfounded they chose the name of the infamous NSA mass surveillance program revealed by Snowden in 2013. And even more so that there is just one other comment among 320 pointing this out I just think it's silly to obsess over words like that. There are many words that take on different meanings in different contexts and can be associated with different events, ideas, products, time periods, etc. Would you feel…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I run a small print-on-demand platform and this is exactly what we're seeing. The submissions used to be easy to filter with basic heuristics or cheap classifiers, but now the grammar and structure are technically perfect. The problem is that running a stronger model to detect the semantic drift or hallucinations costs more than the potential margin on the book. We're pretty much back to manual review which destroys…
If it's print-on-demand, why does it matter? Why shouldn't you accept someone's money to print slop for them?
> Prism is free to use, and anyone with a ChatGPT account can start writing immediately. Great, so now I'll have to sift through a bunch of ostensibly legitimate (though legitimate looking) non-peer reviewed whitepapers, where if I forget to check the peer review status even once I risk wasting a large amount of time reading gobbledygook. Thanks openai?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I'm dumbfounded they chose the name of the infamous NSA mass surveillance program revealed by Snowden in 2013. And even more so that there is just one other comment among 320 pointing this out I just think it's silly to obsess over words like that. There are many words that take on different meanings in different contexts and can be associated with different events, ideas, products, time periods, etc. Would you feel…
Sure. Like Goebbels. Because they gobble things up. Altso, nazism. But different context, years ago, so whatever I guess? Hell, let's just call it Hitler. Different context! Given what they do it is an insidious name. Words matter.