MIT paper on AI for materials research found to be fraudulent
thebsdetector.substack.com
MIT paper on AI for materials research found to be fraudulent
1–9 of 9 posts
Re: MIT paper on AI for materials research found to be fraudulent
#2Re: MIT paper on AI for materials research found to be fraudulent
#3Dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44006426
This is actually an in-depth analysis on the fraudulent paper and it's much more interesting than the WSJ article. One for dang to decide I guess.
Re: MIT paper on AI for materials research found to be fraudulent
#4I am shocked, "shocked*, to find fraud in the Science community!
The best thing from Science for the last 15 years or so has been the focus on discovering and publicizing it.
Re: MIT paper on AI for materials research found to be fraudulent
#5The ironic thing is I'm sure AI for materials research isn't too far from being avaliable or possible, they were just a bit too early.
Re: MIT paper on AI for materials research found to be fraudulent
#6Just like most AI papers.
Re: MIT paper on AI for materials research found to be fraudulent
#7The ironic thing is I'm sure AI for materials research isn't too far from being avaliable or possible, they were just a bit too early.
There are a lot of legitimate papers, this is just one fraud.
Re: MIT paper on AI for materials research found to be fraudulent
#8Re: MIT paper on AI for materials research found to be fraudulent
#9> I also think that if comments were enabled on arxiv preprints, this could have led to a much more rapid conclusion to the fraud. Probably a materials scientist who read the paper realized this was fraudulent but wasn’t able to get that view quickly to the economists who were actually reading and discussing the paper. A well-written arxiv comment explaining why the data on materials similarity, for example, couldn’t be true, would have gone a long way.
could this work outside/on top of arxiv?