Comment on 'vegetative electron microscopy'

LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

• KickMeElmo@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

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

  source

  • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

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

    source

    • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

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

      source

      • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

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

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • 1stTime4MeInMCU@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        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.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • Pregnenolone@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      I have an actual hot take: the ability to communicate productive science shouldn’t be limited by the ability to write.

      source

      • pupbiru@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        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

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • Black616Angel@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      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”.

      source
    • jjagaimo@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      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 being scolded by another researcher for questioning this

      source

      • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        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 and is constantly spreading FUD about academia because it drives clicks.

        source