Technology

59149 readers

2447 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

165

Scientists aghast at bizarre AI rat with huge genitals in peer-reviewed article | It's unclear how such egregiously bad images made it through peer-review. (arstechnica.com)

submitted 8 months ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

33 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Scientists aghast at bizarre AI rat with huge genitals in peer-reviewed article | It's unclear how such egregiously bad images made it through peer-review.::It's unclear how such egregiously bad images made it through peer-review.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Researchgrant@lemmy.world 13 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I did read that article the first time you linked it. Can you go back and read my reply again? I agreed that there is a problem with reproducibility, but that has nothing to do with a paper where no experiments were done.

[–] Haagel@lemmings.world -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

So it's OK to publish "research" that's been generated by AI so long as there are no experiments involved? I'm sorry. I don't understand what you're getting at.

There has clearly been a massive decline in academic integrity lately, as evidenced by this ridiculous paper and so many others. Why should any of it be excusable?

[–] Researchgrant@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

It's like I'm taking to a wall. I completely agree with you that this article is egregious. I'm simply pointing out that your talking points were completely invalid when it comes to this, and bringing up reproducibility and non peer reviewed articles retracts from the point that this article followed those rules and was still published. Blame the reviewers, blame the editor, blame the fame hungry scientists, but bringing up totally unrelated problems with science pubs makes you sound like an idiot, which clearly you are. Go ahead and reply again l. I will not bother reading it.