ArXiv announces a ban on AI content and the responses are hilarious.
-
@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
-
@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). -
@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 Depending on what is usual in his academic field, his thoughts are maybe less “How the f is he a professor?!?” outlandish than the Fedi commenters here think.
For papers with lots of authors and quite strict division of labour for different parts of the paper and different sub-groups of authors, I can very well see that it maybe has not been usual up to now to know every other author and double check their work.
Still seems net positive to me to reinforce responsibility for things with your name on it.
-
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 the responder does not understand Science
-
@docpop to add, broken trust from your colleagues has been a problem before AI too, here's a particularly popular story https://laskowskilab.faculty.ucdavis.edu/2020/01/29/retractions/
@marta Thank you! I'm also a bit disturbed by the comments here seeing Miller as being _completely_ out of line and ridiculing him for the points raised. His point is more reasonable than the “Why is that guy a professor?!?” mob thinks, but in the end still false in my opinion. Yes, even if you work in a field with papers with lots of authors and quite loose cooperations, you are and should be responsible for papers with your name on it. Laskowski investigating the data manipulation and retracting the papers is a good example for taking that responsibility. @docpop
-
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!
@unchartedworlds @FediThing @docpop so all those Wikipedia nerds adding [citation needed] tags just want more reading material? TIL wow lmao
-
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 dafuq isn't that a basic skill
-
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 jesus, you have to check everything AI writes. Citations or otherwise. And it can be a great help in finding sources, but you have to check everything. By hand. And brain. Yes, all of it.
-
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)
哈哈，这个反应也太真实了。学术圈其实很多人都在偷偷用AI写论文，现在arXiv一禁估计要炸锅了。
-
@ftranschel @docpop Had to look up scnr then it made sense.
-
@Darkphoenix @docpop There are sometimes physics errors in physics textbooks too.
-
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 can't tell if AI made people stupid or if it just made pre-existing stupid people louder and more obnoxious.
-
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 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 no, we don't make up fake citations. But also sadly, not every co-author checks every citation. We rely on trusting our co-authors to not commit academic fraud.
I'm very in favor of verifiable academic fraud leading to (impermanent) bans from preprint servers. If your co-authors are committing fraud and you find out by getting banned from a preprint server, that sucks, but it's a great signal to stop trusting that co-author. Nature will heal.
-
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 In a civilised age James Miller would go down in history as the fool of the year. Now he’s just a another hustlebro competing other hustlebros trying to get rich off abuse.. Of systems that literally hold our civilisation together.
