• Guest, The HibeesBounce invites you to enter our Monthly Draw...

    Enter our Monthly Draw Here

    GGTTH

  • hibeesbounce

Leading science journal publishes AI generated guff about rat with giant penis

Forums New posts
I bought a magazine called Linux format the other day.There was quite a few articles about AI generated computing. I also bought Private Eye.Private Eye seem to be less keen on the AI stuff than the Linux geeks. I’m in two minds about where I stand on it good or bad.
 
From the Telegraph? Which actual journal is this published in?

Fakers do get caught and I struggle to believe this is not either a prank or in some form of pseudoscience publication. There are journals and then there are "journals", some will literally publish anything. Also a huge push to discredit actual science and related disciplines such as archeaology is ongoing.

Telegraph has a paywall!
 
jetsam1 said:
From the Telegraph? Which actual journal is this published in?

Fakers do get caught and I struggle to believe this is not either a prank or in some form of pseudoscience publication. There are journals and then there are "journals", some will literally publish anything. Also a huge push to discredit actual science and related disciplines such as archeaology is ongoing.

Telegraph has a paywall!
Click to expand...
Frontiers in Cell and Development Biology

Submitted by those wacky Chinese fellas
 
www.researchhub.com

ResearchHub | Open Science Community

We're a community seeking to improve prioritization, collaboration, reproducibility, and funding of scientific research. Discuss and discover academic research on ResearchHub
www.researchhub.com www.researchhub.com

So their peer review process is not great and easy to game with a "fasttrack" approach to publication that makes me suspect commercial aspects are more important than scientific. They are a Swiss owned publisher with a knock 'em out quick and in bulk business model.

www.swissinfo.ch

AI-generated rat genitalia: Swiss publisher of scientific journal under pressure

Researchers accuse Frontiers of questionable editorial practices, which include publishing articles without scientific validity, just to make profits.
www.swissinfo.ch www.swissinfo.ch

This is a good overall summary. Mentions that it is not easy to reject a paper from Frontiers.

This paper has been withdrawn it must be said.

Their fees to publish seem suspiciously low as well......... They will be having serious reputational issues I think, as that is very important int he academic world. Your journal lacks credibility the best will publish elsewhere.
 
jetsam1 said:
www.researchhub.com

ResearchHub | Open Science Community

We're a community seeking to improve prioritization, collaboration, reproducibility, and funding of scientific research. Discuss and discover academic research on ResearchHub
www.researchhub.com www.researchhub.com

So their peer review process is not great and easy to game with a "fasttrack" approach to publication that makes me suspect commercial aspects are more important than scientific. They are a Swiss owned publisher with a knock 'em out quick and in bulk business model.

www.swissinfo.ch

AI-generated rat genitalia: Swiss publisher of scientific journal under pressure

Researchers accuse Frontiers of questionable editorial practices, which include publishing articles without scientific validity, just to make profits.
www.swissinfo.ch www.swissinfo.ch

This is a good overall summary. Mentions that it is not easy to reject a paper from Frontiers.

This paper has been withdrawn it must be said.

Their fees to publish seem suspiciously low as well....... They will be having serious reputational issues I think, as that is very important int he academic world. Your journal lacks credibility the best will publish elsewhere.
Click to expand...
I have to say this was originally intended to be an amusing thread about a rodent with a giant wanger and a bit of human folly.

However, you are no doubt correct!
 
egb_hibs said:
I have to say this was originally intended to be an amusing thread about a rodent with a giant wanger and a bit of human folly.

However, you are no doubt correct!
Click to expand...

Well I tried....... Who has been training the internet about giant rat wangs for an AI to "WHOOOO"?

I have a week next week and I think I really need it looking at my post above!
 
jetsam1 said:
Well I tried..... Who has been training the internet about giant rat wangs for an AI to "WHOOOO"?

I have a week next week and I think I really need it looking at my post above!
Click to expand...
I suspect Dall-E will generate endless varieties on the theme if prompted correctly.

It will be splicing together different source materials based on prompts. Something like ' provide an anatomical illustration of a rat with a penis larger than itself depicted in biological cross section. Use as references existing biological cross section illustrations, append with captions in the style of those drawings'

The thing is an idiot savant - tell it do any old shite and it will do what it's told using some smarts to blend images.
 
A week off work next week. I am so tired I cannot type properly anymore!!

I haven't actually used an AI prompters, not had the inclination and not sure why. Oh only the BING image generator as I tried to break it with viking kittens.
 
jetsam1 said:
A week off work next week. I am so tired I cannot type properly anymore!!

I haven't actually used an AI prompters, not had the inclination and not sure why. Oh only the BING image generator as I tried to break it with viking kittens.
Click to expand...
I think an absence of inclination is a healthy thing. I've never done it either but I have an idea how it works. Bing is for the birds. If you do want to try it you want to use Dall-E like I say which is a visual version of chatgpt.

It's all bollocks. I've been trying to use chatgpt to do useful work things rather than generated shite and it's pretty rubbish tbh. That said it can be optimised for given tasks but really who can be arsed with that?
 
jetsam1 said:
From the Telegraph? Which actual journal is this published in?

Fakers do get caught and I struggle to believe this is not either a prank or in some form of pseudoscience publication. There are journals and then there are "journals", some will literally publish anything. Also a huge push to discredit actual science and related disciplines such as archeaology is ongoing.

Telegraph has a paywall!
Click to expand...
I couldn't access the Telegraph article either so I googled the story.

Anybody know how to clear a search history?
 
Rocky said:
There's a man speaking from experience :3:

Does that work for watching Willie Thorne anaw?
Click to expand...
I was party to a recent dispute - and I hasten to add in the context of popular beverage the 'pornstar martini' - whether correct pronunciation is per Willie Thorne or Jason Bourne. It spiralled into accusations implicating social class and other such nonsense, as drink fuelled topics do.
 
egb_hibs said:
I was party to a recent dispute - and I hasten to add in the context of popular beverage the 'pornstar martini' - whether correct pronunciation is per Willie Thorne or Jason Bourne. It spiralled into accusations implicating social class and other such nonsense, as drink fuelled topics do.
Click to expand...
How tf could it sound like Bourne???
 
Rocky said:
How tf could it sound like Bourne???
Click to expand...
Would your really say

Paw rno

Rather than pour no?

It's one of these words that's written down 100x more often than spoken aloud and it never occurred to me that it was other than the latter - which I'm sure is how it was said at school lol

Apparently nothing like universal agreement though; indeed i may be in the minority, although the aforementioned debate did produce advocates of both
 
egb_hibs said:
Would your really say

Paw rno

Rather than pour no?

It's one of these words that's written down 100x more often than spoken aloud and it never occurred to me that it was other than the latter - which I'm sure is how it was said at school lol

Apparently nothing like universal agreement though; indeed i may be in the minority, although the aforementioned debate did produce advocates of both
Click to expand...
Actually standing outside the boozer saying it now cos I can't fathom how it could possibly be pour no.

Anyway, polis have arrived, better go.
 
Rocky said:
I genuinely thought that wasn't up for debate, turns out there's not a thing egb can't be contrary about. And I do mean that nicely, it's not a dig
Click to expand...
Not trying to be contrary (though I appreciate your sentiment) just something if never recognised.

Maybe it runs in the family. My dad had called pizza 'pitsa' all his days!
 
egb_hibs said:
Not trying to be contrary (though I appreciate your sentiment) just something if never recognised.

Maybe it runs in the family. My dad had called pizza 'pitsa' all his days!
Click to expand...
Genuinely thought I was the most contrary c**t in the world till I had the pleasure of your company.
 
Is this the correct thread to post this?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Sancho Panza said:
Is this the correct thread to post this?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
Click to expand...

Not sure what is more depressing, that fact that people cited these without the proper checking or that they got accepted in the first place? But as access to the top journals is expensive I can see people looking at open access. I have recently just on Science Direct and have to say (and this may be a bit unkind) my dodgy senses were tingling.

I was taught to be wary of where the sources come from and I always stuck the Journals of record in my field and also paid attention to the institutions the writers were based. Outliers tend to be suspicious.

By the way my field is career failure. Just making it clear I am no expert!
 
jetsam1 said:
Not sure what is more depressing, that fact that people cited these without the proper checking or that they got accepted in the first place? But as access to the top journals is expensive I can see people looking at open access. I have recently just on Science Direct and have to say (and this may be a bit unkind) my dodgy senses were tingling.

I was taught to be wary of where the sources come from and I always stuck the Journals of record in my field and also paid attention to the institutions the writers were based. Outliers tend to be suspicious.

By the way my field is career failure. Just making it clear I am no expert!
Click to expand...
I'm really glad I did my post-grad research old skool style in archives and libraries. Seems the Internet has facilitated the decline of academic standards and peer review or at least made them much harder to maintain when searching for primary resources is so much easier but so much harder to verify their provenance and authenticity.
 
Sancho Panza said:
I'm really glad I did my post-grad research old skool style in archives and libraries. Seems the Internet has facilitated the decline of academic standards and peer review or at least made them much harder to maintain when searching for primary resources is so much easier but so much harder to verify their provenance and authenticity.
Click to expand...
Aren't academic submissions run through programmes to check for plagiarism etc?
 
Archie said:
Aren't academic submissions run through programmes to check for plagiarism etc?
Click to expand...

As I understand it they are and undergraduate submissions are checked in this way, I suppose it is just the same as paying someone to write your essays for you. I remember getting a LOT of training on plagiarism and even in the early 2000s people still got caught by good markers who could recognise when something was not quite right.

I used the online journals via the University subscriptions but it was always the "proper" ones. Sticking to the likes of Elsevier, Science Direct and JSTOR you are usually going to be ok. Still need to keep eyes open though. The fact is that the library could be busy and I hated working in there, Birmingham Uni has actually replaced that old building so maybe it will be much better now.

I don't think there is inherently anything wrong with online resourcing as long as you employ the same skills as in a hard copy. We all know there is a huge amount of rubbish that gets printed every day and over the last few centuries.
 
Archie said:
Aren't academic submissions run through programmes to check for plagiarism etc?
Click to expand...
From what I have read over the years it’s a bit of a racket these days. So much money and prestige involved that standards are not what they might be. So all kinds of guff gets through with plagiarism being the least of it.

My favourite examples are the spoofs of postmodernism, which are essentially indistinguishable from the real thing (including on academic merit and actual meaning), hence the point.

Sokal affair - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org

en.m.wikipedia.org

Grievance studies affair - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org

www.theatlantic.com

What an Audacious Hoax Reveals About Academia

Three scholars wrote 20 fake papers using fashionable jargon to argue for ridiculous conclusions.
www.theatlantic.com www.theatlantic.com
 
AI needs human input to create anything from scratch.

So if you feed it a load of bullshit at first...it's going to create alot of bullshit too.


It's like the climate fanatics.
They've stated that Carbon is the problem to AI,so AIs solution...eliminate Humans(Were carbon after all)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
hibeesbounce

Support The Bounce

Goal
£100.00
Earned
£38.75
Ends in......
0 hours, 0 minutes, 0 seconds
  38.8%
Donate
Back