Yeah, this is a hot take: I think it’s totally fine if researchers who have done their studies and collected their data want to use AI as a language tool to bolster their paper. Some researchers legitimately have a hard time communicating, or English is a second language, and would benefit from a pass through AI enhancement, or as a translation tool if they’re more comfortable writing in their native language. However, I am not in favor of submitting it without review of every single word, or using it to synthesize new concepts / farm citations. That’s not research because anybody can do it.
It is also a somehow hot take because it kinda puts the burden of systemic misconfiguration on individuals shoulders (oh hey we’ve seen this before, after and all the time, hashtag (neo)liberalism).
I agree people who did that fucked up. But having your existence as an academic, your job, maybe the only thing you’re good at rely on publishing a ton of papers no matter what should be taken into account.
This is a huge problem for science not just since LLM’s.
Yeah, when you build the hoops you must jump through to maintain your livelihood to be based on a publication machine is it any surprise people gameify it and exploit what they can
You should be abke to sue these peer-reviewed journals that let this kind of errors slip through. And they should lose the ability to call themselves “peer-reviewed”.
if you’re contribution is a paper that you don’t even proof read to ensure it makes any sense at all then your contribution isn’t “productive science”; it’s a waste of everyone’s time
There are people in academia now that just publish bullshit incomprehensible papers that may be wrong just to justify continuing funding and not rock the boat. It keeps them employed and paid. I belive this person discussed this
I knew who this was going to be before I even clicked, and I highly suggest you ignore her. She speaks well outside of fields she has any knowledge about (she’s a physicist but routinely extrapolates that to other fields in ways that aren’t substantiated) and is constantly spreading FUD about academia because it drives clicks. She essentially hyper-amplifies real problems present in academia in a way that basically tells the public not to trust science.
AI consumed the original paper, interpreted it as a single combined term, and regurgitated it for researchers too lazy to write their own papers.
Hot take: this behavior should get you blacklisted from contributing to any peer-reviewed journal for life. That’s repugnant.
I don’t think it’s even a hot take
It’s a hot take, but it’s also objectively the correct opinion
Unfortunately, the former is rather what should be the case, although so many times it is not:-(.
Yeah, this is a hot take: I think it’s totally fine if researchers who have done their studies and collected their data want to use AI as a language tool to bolster their paper. Some researchers legitimately have a hard time communicating, or English is a second language, and would benefit from a pass through AI enhancement, or as a translation tool if they’re more comfortable writing in their native language. However, I am not in favor of submitting it without review of every single word, or using it to synthesize new concepts / farm citations. That’s not research because anybody can do it.
It is also a somehow hot take because it kinda puts the burden of systemic misconfiguration on individuals shoulders (oh hey we’ve seen this before, after and all the time, hashtag (neo)liberalism).
I agree people who did that fucked up. But having your existence as an academic, your job, maybe the only thing you’re good at rely on publishing a ton of papers no matter what should be taken into account.
This is a huge problem for science not just since LLM’s.
Yeah, when you build the hoops you must jump through to maintain your livelihood to be based on a publication machine is it any surprise people gameify it and exploit what they can
Even hotter take:
You should be abke to sue these peer-reviewed journals that let this kind of errors slip through. And they should lose the ability to call themselves “peer-reviewed”.
I have an actual hot take: the ability to communicate productive science shouldn’t be limited by the ability to write.
if you’re contribution is a paper that you don’t even proof read to ensure it makes any sense at all then your contribution isn’t “productive science”; it’s a waste of everyone’s time
*your
well at least you know my comment wasn’t written by AI 😞
Gottem
There are people in academia now that just publish bullshit incomprehensible papers that may be wrong just to justify continuing funding and not rock the boat. It keeps them employed and paid. I belive this person discussed this
I knew who this was going to be before I even clicked, and I highly suggest you ignore her. She speaks well outside of fields she has any knowledge about (she’s a physicist but routinely extrapolates that to other fields in ways that aren’t substantiated) and is constantly spreading FUD about academia because it drives clicks. She essentially hyper-amplifies real problems present in academia in a way that basically tells the public not to trust science.