ArXiv announces a ban on AI content and the responses are hilarious.
-
ArXiv announces a ban on AI content and the responses are hilarious.
> You expect us to actually read the papers we cite?!
yes, lol!
ArXiv to Ban Researchers for a Year if They Submit AI Slop
The change comes as arXiv and others struggle to manage an influx of AI-generated materials masquerading as rigorous science.
404 Media (www.404media.co)
@docpop
"But I only had SuckJobAI create the fake citations to support what you and I both know is true anyway that I wrote about, if you'd just do your fuckin' reasear..." -
He said further down in the thread what he thinks citations are for:
"The citations are there to help readers who want to learn more about a sub topic, quickly locate new papers. They also function as a business suit, signaling that you're a serious person."
(yikes)
and various people have replied to that saying no that is not, in fact, what they are for!
-
@FediThing @unchartedworlds @docpop The bar to be one is maybe not as high as it should be? (That's how I hope to sneak in as one. maybe!)
-
ArXiv announces a ban on AI content and the responses are hilarious.
> You expect us to actually read the papers we cite?!
yes, lol!
ArXiv to Ban Researchers for a Year if They Submit AI Slop
The change comes as arXiv and others struggle to manage an influx of AI-generated materials masquerading as rigorous science.
404 Media (www.404media.co)
@docpop Guess this James Miller is not skilled, qualified and educated enough to file papers... even without AI content.
-
@FediThing @unchartedworlds @docpop guess its a similar process as granting a patent in the USA... (like the ones our specialist tells us: these patent is valid even if it would never get approval in Germany, Europe, China,...), or safety certificates for Boeing...
-
@docpop @FediThing Well, his point is *slightly* more nuanced in that he's arguing "What if *I* checked the citations I added, but this other guy I co-author with did not on his part of the paper? Why am I responsible?"
To which I reply "sucks to be you, my guy."
@adriano @docpop @FediThing well how we did it at university back then? We did all the work alone, when there was no trustworthy partner for group-work. If you wanted to ensure quality and deadlines, you needed the one person you can trust: Yourself.
-
@docpop @FediThing
To be clear, this is the same kind of argument as "What if I need to shout the N-word to save a baby from being crushed by a bus?", and the like.@adriano @docpop @FediThing Naggers?
-
@FediThing @docpop the chap's a PhD
@jackeric @FediThing @docpop I meet PhD which barely were able to fasten one's shoes... a PhD just means: get some 20+% more money for the same work.
-
@docpop Um....this raises so many questions. Like where did they buy their advanced degrees?
@rjblaskiewicz @docpop even worse: the guy teaches. In college.
His ratemyprofessor page is... interesting. -
ArXiv announces a ban on AI content and the responses are hilarious.
> You expect us to actually read the papers we cite?!
yes, lol!
ArXiv to Ban Researchers for a Year if They Submit AI Slop
The change comes as arXiv and others struggle to manage an influx of AI-generated materials masquerading as rigorous science.
404 Media (www.404media.co)
I both cringe and laugh in professor.
-
ArXiv announces a ban on AI content and the responses are hilarious.
> You expect us to actually read the papers we cite?!
yes, lol!
ArXiv to Ban Researchers for a Year if They Submit AI Slop
The change comes as arXiv and others struggle to manage an influx of AI-generated materials masquerading as rigorous science.
404 Media (www.404media.co)
@docpop I read at least part of every book in the bibliography of my PhD thesis. Did I do it wrong?
-
@docpop I read at least part of every book in the bibliography of my PhD thesis. Did I do it wrong?
no, you did the self-torture that is a key part of a PhD program.
-
@docpop
Unfortunately, I think this is a common attitude in many fields. As someone who has often needed to reproduce other scientists' work, I can confirm that I frequently check other peoples' citations in methodology that turn out to just be wrong. E.g., "As in Smith (2004), we decide the value of parameter X by applying formula Y to input Z." Often I find one of the following:- The citation does not spell out important details, which have never made it into the scientific record at all, but are spread informally among a particular clique of researchers who frequently collaborate. (Or they are in documentation that was not publicly archived, e.g. internal wikis, proprietary software code, etc.)
- The citation is just to the wrong paper (e.g. the actual source is a different paper by the same author the year before, or the cited paper itself doesn't contain the full details and cites some earlier paper instead).- The cited work had an error that required a later correction to be mentioned in an erratum or subsequent article (e.g. fixing a typo in a formula), and the citing researchers were unaware of the correction, so their own work reproduces the same error.
- The cited work had an error that was later corrected, and the citing researchers knew about the correction, but they didn't bother to mention it or cite the later work where the correction appears, so anyone trying to reproduce their results would have no idea that there's an inaccuracy that needs to be corrected.
- The work that should have been cited is out of print and was never digitized, so rather than work with a research library to try to track down a copy and see what it says, the authors either don't double-check what it said, or cite some other work by the same author.This is a major problem! LLMs are both directly making the problem worse, and encouraging scientists to churn out publications without putting in the work to verify.
-
ArXiv announces a ban on AI content and the responses are hilarious.
> You expect us to actually read the papers we cite?!
yes, lol!
ArXiv to Ban Researchers for a Year if They Submit AI Slop
The change comes as arXiv and others struggle to manage an influx of AI-generated materials masquerading as rigorous science.
404 Media (www.404media.co)
@docpop
Unfortunately, I think this is a common attitude in many fields. As someone who has often needed to reproduce other scientists' work, I can confirm that I frequently check other peoples' citations in methodology that turn out to just be wrong. E.g., "As in Smith (2004), we decide the value of parameter X by applying formula Y to input Z." Often I find one of the following:- The citation does not spell out important details, which have never made it into the scientific record at all, but are spread informally among a particular clique of researchers who frequently collaborate. (Or they are in documentation that was not publicly archived, e.g. internal wikis, proprietary software code, etc.)
- The citation is just to the wrong paper (e.g. the actual source is a different paper by the same author the year before, or the cited paper itself doesn't contain the full details and cites some earlier paper instead). -
@docpop @FediThing Well, his point is *slightly* more nuanced in that he's arguing "What if *I* checked the citations I added, but this other guy I co-author with did not on his part of the paper? Why am I responsible?"
To which I reply "sucks to be you, my guy."
@adriano @docpop @FediThing “perhaps you could speak to your co-authors, my guy”
-
ArXiv announces a ban on AI content and the responses are hilarious.
> You expect us to actually read the papers we cite?!
yes, lol!
ArXiv to Ban Researchers for a Year if They Submit AI Slop
The change comes as arXiv and others struggle to manage an influx of AI-generated materials masquerading as rigorous science.
404 Media (www.404media.co)
@docpop I almost read it in a sarcastic tone. Would be funny if he was deliberately trying to be contrarian (in a bad way) just to make the OP’s point.
-
ArXiv announces a ban on AI content and the responses are hilarious.
> You expect us to actually read the papers we cite?!
yes, lol!
ArXiv to Ban Researchers for a Year if They Submit AI Slop
The change comes as arXiv and others struggle to manage an influx of AI-generated materials masquerading as rigorous science.
404 Media (www.404media.co)
@docpop@mastodon.social I can't believe anyone ever actually seriously thought they didn't have to look at the things they're citing
-
@docpop from his profile, Miller has a PhD from U. Chicago, a JD from Stanford, and is a professor at Smith College.
I think this reflects badly on every one of those-- what is research from these places actually worth, if fake citations are common there?He and his defenders are basically saying "everyone does it, and you're naive to complain." If it's true that everyone does it, that reflects badly on modern academia as a whole.
Any academic researchers want to chime in here?
@jamesmarshall @docpop
He's wrong. Not everyone does it. He's trying an argumentum ad populum. I'm on the publication ethics committee of a major Comp Sci academic society publisher and we would redact papers with multiple non-existent citations and ban the authors from submitting to our publications for at least a year.
You submit it as your work, you stand byit as valid. Jointly and severally, although we sometimes go easy on student joint authors with faculty (faculty should know better). -
ArXiv announces a ban on AI content and the responses are hilarious.
> You expect us to actually read the papers we cite?!
yes, lol!
ArXiv to Ban Researchers for a Year if They Submit AI Slop
The change comes as arXiv and others struggle to manage an influx of AI-generated materials masquerading as rigorous science.
404 Media (www.404media.co)
@docpop That fucker belongs on Fux News. ""People are saying" means that's good enough for me to cite!"
-
ArXiv announces a ban on AI content and the responses are hilarious.
> You expect us to actually read the papers we cite?!
yes, lol!
ArXiv to Ban Researchers for a Year if They Submit AI Slop
The change comes as arXiv and others struggle to manage an influx of AI-generated materials masquerading as rigorous science.
404 Media (www.404media.co)
@docpop Clearly those people never had experience in making research papers or something like that. And that's bad
