51–60 of 68 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This has not been my experience with any of the promotion committees I've been on. But Frontiers has been off my list since Frontiers in Public Health published a number of AIDS denialism papers. And yeah, every figure in this paper is nonsensical garbage.
Is the text garbage as well? I don't have any knowledge of the subject area.
Interestingly, the authors do disclose they used Midjourney.
I 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?
Not just peer review, Frontiers claims "out editorial office conducts a pre-screening for validation of research integrity and quality standards" before that point. There's also supposed to be a "final validation" phase where they go over it again. It shouldn't have made it to peer review and shouldn't have made it out of it.
Will 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?
I 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?
Crassness breeds clicks, and that's all they want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How could this possibly pass peer review? they've probably outsourced that to generative AI too
I wouldn't be surprised. I've seen people say that instead of reading articles now, they just open up ChatGPT and say "Summarize the important parts of the following article for me". My experience is that ChatGPT is laughably wrong when it comes to generating any kind of factual information. At best, it's good for feeding ridiculous prompts into it and trying to see what the most cursed thing you can get to spit out…
But it’s really unreliable if it’s leveraging “knowledge” from its training. Asking what something in an article means, for example, is pretty risky. Open-ended questions that cause knowledge dumps are very risky—the longer the answer, the riskier. Even text translation is risky, even though it’s ostensibly a simple transformation, because it has to draw the word mappings from training. And god help you if you ask it a leading question without realizing it. It’ll often just parrot your assumption back to you.
To your point, though, using an LLM as an oracle/teacher would be a lot less dangerous if it were always laughably wrong but it’s usually not. It’s usually 90% right, and that’s what makes it so insidious. Picking out the 10% that isn’t is really hard, especially if you don’t know enough to second-guess it. The wrong stuff usually looks plausible and it’s surrounded by enough valid info that what little you do know seems to corroborate the rest.
One 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.
The future is probably mediocre. Things that are "good enough" replace real craftsmanship.
I install heavy machinery for a living. The devices I install simply won’t work unless I do it near perfect.
One 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.
The future is probably mediocre. Things that are "good enough" replace real craftsmanship.
The problem is that some people go for volume over quality.
How do we name and shame those people?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not that hard when they have a processor in that knows the date or an Internet connection. I'm not suggesting anyone has done that yet. But only a matter of time, surely?
Great, I can't wait for appliances that stuxnet themselves shortly after their warranty period. New home automation hack: have your pi-hole pull double duty by running a local, pirate NTP server that forever makes the appliances think they're only a year old.
Scientific 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...
While there is a lot to be said about that, that's a different affair. This is just Frontiers doing exactly what you'd expect it to do. It's a hot garbage, predatory journal with a low impact factor (low trust, parasites).
These sorts of predatory journals are in the business of publishing anything for page charges .... they don't do real peer review!