this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2024
318 points (97.0% liked)

Technology

59390 readers
2617 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Study featuring AI-generated giant rat penis retracted entirely, journal apologizes::A peer-reviewed study featured nonsensical AI images including a giant rat penis in the latest example of how generative AI has seeped into academia.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 13 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

It got published, people noticed it, people saw it was bullshit, it got retracted. Publishing is not the end of the line.

It's an extreme example, but it's still an example of the system working in the end. Reasonable people are supposed to question what they read, not blindly trust it, that's how you catch "important shit".

The problem is not that some bad papers get published. The problem would be them staying unchallenged. And it's also a problem that laymen consider one random study is an undeniable proof of their argument (potentially ignoring the thousands of studies contradicting it).

[–] [email protected] 25 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Of course some things will always slip through the cracks, but this is egregious. What does their peer-review process look like that this passed through it?

[–] [email protected] 16 points 9 months ago

Right? Even when skimming papers, it's usually: read title & abstract, look at figures, skim results & conclusion. If you don't notice that the figure doesn't have real words, how is anyone making sure the methodology makes sense? That the results show what the conclusion says they show?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I am not disagreeing that this is ridiculous, I was just saying that this stupidity is not what should convince people not to take some random paper for an absolute truth, just because it was published.

Even if you eliminate fraud, bullshit and even honest mistakes, that's just not how science works.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

A shame most people are trained by both the school system and society to just take things at face value

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

An even greater shame is that almost no people are trained on basic statistics and think they can debunk a published study in PNAS with a Google search and some random guys blog.