this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2025
1589 points (99.7% liked)

Science Memes

13932 readers
1263 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 55 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Wait how did this lead to 20 papers containing the term? Did all 20 have these two words line up this way? Or something else?

[–] KickMeElmo@sopuli.xyz 171 points 1 week ago (1 children)

AI consumed the original paper, interpreted it as a single combined term, and regurgitated it for researchers too lazy to write their own papers.

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 177 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Hot take: this behavior should get you blacklisted from contributing to any peer-reviewed journal for life. That's repugnant.

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".

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 84 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I don't think it's even a hot take

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 48 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's a hot take, but it's also objectively the correct opinion

[–] OpenStars@piefed.social 19 points 1 week ago

Unfortunately, the former is rather what should be the case, although so many times it is not:-(.

[–] 1stTime4MeInMCU@mander.xyz 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] kwomp2@sh.itjust.works 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] 1stTime4MeInMCU@mander.xyz 2 points 5 days ago

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