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

Fraud, so much fraud

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

641–650 of 868 posts

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#641

Post by oneshtein »

echoangle wrote: post #636
oneshtein wrote: post #634

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMHO, it's clear that no human can learn like AI. AI outperformed humans with huge margin in some areas already, while their performance is laughable in other areas. Also, it's obvious that our brain is not built like AI models. There are similarities between both human and current AI models, but there also huge differences, which doesn't allow easily map one to another.

Of course, that’s what makes it a model, not a digital twin of a human brain. But nobody claimed that, so having a roughly similar working principle is enough for me to call it a model of a brain.

No, it's not a model of a human brain, like bicycle is not a model of human legs. It's artificial intelligence. There are similarities, but we cannot use current AI models to study human brain: it's useless for that job.

We can create a model of human brain (Artificial Brain) using a bunch of AI models, of course, but it's not done yet.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#642

Post by [deleted] »

dennis_jeeves2 wrote: post #538
bashfulpup wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love this, do tell the direction to be nudged in. I wish to experience this new level of understanding.

Nutrition is one place where you can start, because it is possible to do some practical experiments. But, be warned, you will easily spend a decade investigating it. I picked the subject, because I'm sure that in the end you will have achieved something of great value: your own relatively better health. (I said relatively, because diet is only one of the factors that influences health, although I say it's an importan…

[deleted]

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#644

Post by echoangle »

oneshtein wrote: post #641
echoangle wrote: post #636

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, that’s what makes it a model, not a digital twin of a human brain. But nobody claimed that, so having a roughly similar working principle is enough for me to call it a model of a brain.

No, it's not a model of a human brain, like bicycle is not a model of human legs. It's artificial intelligence. There are similarities, but we cannot use current AI models to study human brain: it's useless for that job. We can create a model of human brain (Artificial Brain) using a bunch of AI models, of course, but it's not done yet.

Well it’s a model just like a Mindstorms NXT (This guy https://www.lego.com/cdn/product-assets/product.img.pri/8547... ) is a model of human bipedal walking. It’s very simplified and basic but that basic idea is there.

A model doesn’t have to be useful to study the thing you’re modeling, you can also just be interested in the output because it’s simpler than using the original thing. Modeling a human brain with a neural net and using it is simpler than directly simulating a human brain, so that’s what we do. Not being useful to study humans brain on doesn’t mean it’s not a model.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#645

Post by _tom_ »

ak_111 wrote: post #640

What I don't get is that people claim that the incentives are skewed because highly cited paper get you the top jobs. However, assume that a significant subset of the citation are citing because they require the fraudulent result, then this will increase the chance that it would be eventually exposed... and quickly. That is assume that person publishes results that: "factor X seems to lead to outcome Y". Many other s…

And yet, it's common. And it can pay off.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesca_Gino

That guy has a channel on fraud.

Also check out Data Colada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Colada

This isn't theoretical, there's a lot of it going on.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#647

Post by stareatgoats »

layer8 wrote: post #225
badpun wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Callng someone "evil" isn't meant to have some explanatory power. It's merely a label saying that they are, well, evil.

The context here is from the root comment: “Are people who commit this type of science fraud just really evil humans?”. “Just really evil” implies that that there is no other explanation, and that the fraud is committed as a function of them being “really evil”. I don’t actually know what people mean when they label someone as “evil”, other than “is doing/saying/thinking stuff I find very reprehensible”. Which doesn’…

I agree, "evil" is a misconception, there exists no such thing as an "evil" person, in reality, just as there is no such thing as a "darling" person, in reality. But both expressions work as an expression of sentiment. When we use it we aim to communicate that we feel no empathy for such people (in case they are "evil"); they can without further ado be thrown in the dungeon. It is a dehumanizing construct enabling hate, same as calling people vermin, or monsters, but with religious connotations, exposing a will to exclude such people from the community (often for god reason), enabling going to war, or to exploit.

However, by removing empathy, we also reduce the possibility to understand the human motivations behind heinous acts (there always are), find solutions, build bridges, make truces, end wars. So maybe we should go lightly on the "evil" stuff, as much as possible.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#648

Post by yard2010 »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #186
dekhn wrote: post #62

These sorts of articles raise so many thoughts and emotions in me. I was trained as a computational biologist with a little lab work and ran gels from time to time. Personally, I hated gels- they're finicky, messy, ugly, and don't really tell you very much. But molecular biology as a field runs on gels- it's the priimary source of results for almost everything in molbio. I have seen more talks and papers that rested…

It becomes a survival bias: if people can cheat at a competitive game (or research field) and get away with it, then at the end you'll wind up with only cheaters left (everyone else stops playing).

This is why cheaters should never ever ever be allowed to play again with fair players, only with cheaters

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#649

Post by smolder »

dennis_jeeves2 wrote: post #522
atmavatar wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those you'd want to lead recognize leadership is a responsibility often times marked by personal sacrifice. Those you'd never want to lead mostly regard leadership as a privilege used for personal gain.

> Those you'd want to lead recognize leadership is a responsibility often times marked by personal sacrifice. True. It's not a coincidence that they say: it's very lonely* up there. There are some ways around this, but they are not easy, and perhaps even impossible. (*=ironically and paradoxically,the cruelest dictator is also a very lonely person)

Loneliness causes suffering, and suffering does inhibit empathy, or so I read once in a pop sci recounting of a study. It would also make sense that a lack of empathy feeds back into the loneliness by harming relationships. Cyclic determinism, why are you everywhere in life?

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#650

Post by strbean »

Aerroon wrote: post #535
sitkack wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If humanity is to mature, we should be an open book when it comes to incentives and build a world purposefully with all incentives aligned to the outcomes we collectively agree upon. https://fs.blog/great-talks/psychology-human-misjudgment/ Charlie Munger's Misjudgment #1: Incentive-caused Bias https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-2yIO8cnvw https://fs.blog/bias-incentives-reinforcement/

I don't think that's really going to work. People won't list all their incentives, because some of them are implicit and others are embarrassing or "creepy". Others will absolutely judge you for what incentivizes your actions, therefore hiding them is the status quo. If you say that your incentive for working out is to look good and be popular with the ladies then people will judge you for it, even if it's exactly th…

I could be wrong, but I took the parent's comment to mean that we should design incentive structures transparently, instead of obscuring them or outright ignoring the whole concept when engineering society.
Post reply on HN