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

Please commit more blatant academic fraud

jacobbuckman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 365 posts

Re: Please commit more blatant academic fraud

#51

Post by MattGaiser »

bonoboTP wrote: post #43
MattGaiser wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this does not reflect badly on the researcher who came up with it. > But the only way to graduate and put food on the table is to keep getting funding through novel papers that have great results. So in the way in which it matters, it does reflect badly on the researcher who came up with it.

Well, does it reflect badly on a startup founder if their idea doesn't work out? But since things are subtler in science, it's possible to sell stuff and pollute the literature even if it didn't really work out. To do otherwise is altruistic but ultimately outcompeted by those with less qualms about it.

> Well, does it reflect badly on a startup founder if their idea doesn't work out?

Maybe not in SV, but I have heard plenty of people tell startup founders to "get a real job" or refer to trying a startup as a "figuring it out phase."

When a startup some friends founded failed, they had to deal with people wondering if they chose the startup route as they couldn't get real jobs upon graduation.

So, yes, in some places.

Re: Please commit more blatant academic fraud

#52

Post by baybal2 »

The motivation behind it is very simple: eye-watering salaries in the field.

Moneyed people are ready to pay these salaries because a lot of them have succumbed to hype equating "AI" (that phrase alone is complete bullshit) to something bordering on "magic," and bringing equally magical money making opportunities.

The prospect for business owners to get rid of white collar workers in a manner not unlike how machines swept blue collar workers is just this much irresistible.

Re: Please commit more blatant academic fraud

#54

Post by StandardFuture »

bonoboTP wrote: post #48
StandardFuture wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> everyone knows it and we complain about it over some beers all the time. Then why not speak out publicly against it? Obviously because you know that there are still a significant number of individuals that want the system to work this way. Your fear of those individuals is why you don't speak out against it. So who are they? Who are you scared of?

Well, I'm not talking about outright fraud but the more subtler forms mentioned in the article. I think it's probably harder for outsiders to understand the nuance. It's not "who are they", its everyone. The incentives are set up wrong. Blaming individuals is insufficient. It's like dreaming if only politicians stopped lying. Academia is a hierarchy and a power system. People have interests, reputation, prestige and…

> I think it's probably harder for outsiders to understand the nuance.

No, it's simple. It's called game theory. So, who benefits from the publish or perish system that drives this profoundly fraudulent behavior and outcomes in science?

You are avoiding the "who" question. Why not maybe, perhaps, identify the who and get them removed from their position?

It may or may not even be a fellow scientist.

> lack of publications

uh huh, science is not and never was a stationary process.

It's absolutely disgusting that modern academia is filled with so many cowards and buffoons that the state of modern science has reached such a low.

> Even switching to industry isn't so easy without publications

Well, this is stupid. The only thing useful to corporations is your training and not your novelty.

Any novelty is a cherry on top, cream-of-the-crop pick and has nothing to do with being "hirable". But, that is also just an unchangeable aspect of our competitive reality and is thus entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

Re: Please commit more blatant academic fraud

#55

Post by AussieWog93 »

throwaway45209 wrote: post #46
berndi wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it possible that professors with impeccable academic credentials get fired for jokes nearly instantly [1], yet this student's professor was allowed to carry on until he resigned two years later [2]? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_shaming#Tim_Hunt_contro... [2] https://eu.gainesville.com/story/news/education/campus/2021/...

At a lunch for female journalists and scientists, Hunt gave a speech... "It's strange that such a chauvinist monster like me has been asked to speak to women scientists. Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab: you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them they cry. Perhaps we should make separate labs for boys and girls? Now, ser…

That quote is a textbook example of self-deprecating British humour.

Re: Please commit more blatant academic fraud

#56

Post by anonymousDan »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #5

Hmmm. Here we see the following claim: > By partaking in a form of fraud that has left the Overton window of acceptability, the researchers in the collusion ring have finally succeeded in forcing the community to acknowledge its blind spot. For the first time, researchers reading conference proceedings will be forced to wonder: does this work truly merit my attention? Or is its publication simply the result of fraud?…

Ya the guy has barely read or understood the article he is basing all his complaints on.

Re: Please commit more blatant academic fraud

#57

Post by guavaNinja »

berndi wrote: post #11

Wow, the amount of depravity in some academic circles is astonishing. The article links [1] the case of a PhD student at the University of Florida who was forced to participate in such a publication collusion ring and was pressured to commit scientific fraud by fabricating results and submitting them to a conference [2], being threatened with physical harm should he decide to go public. This student saw no way out an…

Could someone please screenshot the Instagram post and re-upload it somewhere else for those of us who don't have an account. Thanks.

Re: Please commit more blatant academic fraud

#58

Post by StandardFuture »

baybal2 wrote: post #52

The motivation behind it is very simple: eye-watering salaries in the field. Moneyed people are ready to pay these salaries because a lot of them have succumbed to hype equating "AI" (that phrase alone is complete bullshit) to something bordering on "magic," and bringing equally magical money making opportunities. The prospect for business owners to get rid of white collar workers in a manner not unlike how machines…

So, in other words, there really is not any "publish or perish" in academia. It's simply that to outcompete your fellow graduate students in getting a top job in industry (or a tenured position in academia) you need to have the most publications with the most "novelty". And that can be justified at any cost.

So, is this, at the end of the day, that the ratio of students willing to study graduate level studies, and jobs that require graduate level studies is dramatically imbalanced?

Sometimes, we as humans like to avoid the obvious discussion because it is the most uncomfortable discussion to have.

The truth is that we need more restrictions and an even higher bar on education that artificially pipes the best of the best in corresponding numbers to estimated availability of jobs in 4-5 years.

I am pretty sure that the medical world already does this.

Re: Please commit more blatant academic fraud

#59

Post by tlb »

The idea that a field can be reformed by making it worse until it suddenly faces a reckoning and emerges much better is ... I don't know where people keep getting the idea that this might work. It has never worked in any field ever in history.

The thing that can happen: fields gradually split into rigorous and non-rigorous camps. Like with evidence-based medicine, or chemistry/alchemy. Depending on the field, either might prevail in the market. Medical research and bridge-building are mostly rigorous, programming is mostly non-rigorous.

AI/ML has a range of rigor levels, from fairly good to total crap. I think people in the field have a reasonable idea which is which. It's frustrating to people outside the field that think they can just take the technique with highest reported performance numbers and expect good results.

Re: Please commit more blatant academic fraud

#60

Post by lixtra »

wincent wrote: post #18

Best part of the article is the footnote, where the author characterizes his own papers: > This paper is bullshit, this paper (a NeurIPS oral) is bullshit, this paper is complete bullshit, this paper is mostly good science but also has a sprinkling of bullshit. Apologies to my co-authors. https://jacobbuckman.com/2021-05-29-please-commit-more-blata...

The author already gave it away in the abstract, though. Up to two digits is a good indicator of bullshit (by both author and review). [1]:

>> score of up to 93.30%

[1] https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/D16-1254.pdf

Post reply on HN