If they really want to do it, they can just run a local language model trained to proofread stuff like this. Would be way better

I definitely utilize AI to assist me in writing papers/essays, but never to just write the whole thing.

Mainly use it for structuring or rewording sections to flow better or sound more professional, and always go back to proofread and ensure that any information stays correct.

Basically, I provide any data/research and get a rough layout down, and then use AI to speed up the refining process.

EDIT: I should note that I am not writing scientific papers using this method, and doing so is probably a bad idea.

I've heard the word "delve" has suddenly become a lot more popular in some fields

The entire abstract is AI. Even without the explicit mention in one sentence, the rest of the text should've been rejected as nonspecific nonsense.

Yep. And AI will totally help.

Ooh I mean not help. It’ll make it much worse. Particularly with the social sciences. Which were already pretty fuX0r3d anyway due to the whole “your emotions equal this number” thing.

Full disclosure: I don’t intend to be condescending.

Research Methods during my graduate studies forever changed the way I interpret just about any claim, fact, or statement. I’m obnoxiously skeptical and probably cynical, to be honest. It annoys the hell out of my wife but it beats buying into sensationalist headlines and miracle research. Then you get into the real world and see how data gets massaged and thrown around haphazardly…believe very little of what you see.

How generative AI is clouding the future of Google search

The search giant doesn’t just face new competition from ChatGPT and other upstarts. It also has to keep AI-powered SEO from damaging its results.

More or less the same phenomenon of signal pollution:

“Google is shifting its responsibility for maintaining the quality of results to moderators on Reddit, which is dangerous,” says Ray of Amsive. Search for “kidney stone pain” and you’ll see Quora and Reddit ranking in the top three positions alongside sites like the Mayo Clinic and the National Kidney Foundation. Quora and Reddit use community moderators to manually remove link spam. But with Reddit’s traffic growing exponentially, is a human line of defense sustainable against a generative AI bot army?

We'll end up using year 2022 as a threshold for reference criteria. Maybe not entirely blocked, but like a ratio... you must have 90% pre-2022 and 10% post-2022.

Perhaps this will spur some culture shift to publish all the data, all the notes, everything - which will be great to train more AI on. Or we'll get to some type of anti-AI or anti-crawler medium.

I am still baffled by the rat dick illustration that got past the review

Nobody would read it even after it was published. No scientist have time to read other’s papers. They’re too busy writing their own papers. This mistake probably made it more read than 99% of all other scientific papers.

I think that part of the issue is quantity and volume. You submit a few papers a year, an AI can in theory submit a few per minute. Even if you filter 98% of them, mistakes will happen.

That said, this particular error in the meme is egregious.

I mean holy shit you’re right, the lack of patient consent is a much bigger issue than getting lazy writing the discussion.

Yes

Research journals are often rated for the quality of the content they publish. My guess is that this "journal" is just shit. If you're a student or researcher, you will come across shit like this and you should be smart enough to tell when something is poor quality.

I've always wondered if some sort of decentralized, community-led system would be better than the current peer review process.

That is, someone can submit their paper and it's publicly available for all to read, then people with expertise in fields relevant to that paper could review and rate its quality.

Now that I think about it it's conceptually similar to Twitter's community notes, where anyone with enough reputation can write a note and if others rate it as helpful it's shown to everyone. Though unlike Twitter there would obviously need to be some kind of vetting process so that it's not just random people submitting and rating papers.

Open access credits is a fantastic idea. Unfortunately it goes against the business model of these parasites. Ultimately, these businesses provide little to no actual value except siphoning taxpayer money. I really prefer eLifes current model but it would be great if it was cheaper. arXiv, Biorxiv provides a better service than most journals IMO

Also I agree with the reviewing seriously and twice as often as publishing. Many people leave academia so reviewing more can cover them.

Perhaps paid reviews would increase quality because unpaid reviews are more susceptible to corruption

Legend right here.

We're providing review assistance and some types of automated replication to publishers for a yearly rate, and planning to sell subscriptions to individual researchers for $50 /mo.

Depends on what kind of translation we're talking here. Translating some chatter? Translating a web page (most of these suck)? Translating a book for it to be published? Translating a book so you can read it yourself? Translating a scientific paper so you can publish it, without proofreading the translation?

Probs recommend a ‘Paedophile Hobgoblin’.