←back to thread

MIT asks arXiv to withdraw preprint of paper on AI and scientific discovery

(economics.mit.edu)
281 points carabiner | 10 comments | 16 May 25 15:09 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
Aurornis ◴[16 May 25 19:25 UTC] No.44008973[source]▶
> Our understanding is that only authors of papers appearing on arXiv can submit withdrawal requests. We have directed the author to submit such a request, but to date, the author has not done so.

Between this and the subtle reference to “former second-year PhD student” it makes sense that they’d have to make a public statement.

They do a good job of toeing the required line of privacy while also giving enough information to see what’s going on.

I wonder if the author thought they could leave the paper up and ride it into a new position while telling a story about voluntarily choosing to leave MIT. They probably didn’t expect MIT to make a public statement about the paper and turn it into a far bigger news story than it would have been if the author quietly retracted it.

replies(1): >>44009531 #
JohnKemeny ◴[16 May 25 20:28 UTC] No.44009531[source]▶
Seeing as how the author has signed in with an account whose email address is username@mit.edu, MIT could just take over the account.

Edit: this comment was only partially serious, not meant as legal advice to MIT.

replies(2): >>44009591 #>>44009654 #
1. Aurornis ◴[16 May 25 20:43 UTC] No.44009654{3}[source]▶
That's not how it works in the real world. That would be a fraudulent request and I suspect they'd invite legal trouble by impersonating someone else to access a computer system.

Furthermore, if the author could demonstrate to arXiv that the request was fraudulent, the paper would be reinstated. The narrative would also switch to people being angry at MIT for impersonating a student to do something.

replies(2): >>44010028 #>>44010380 #
2. NoMoreNicksLeft ◴[16 May 25 21:42 UTC] No.44010028[source]▶
>That's not how it works in the real world. That would be a fraudulent request and I suspect they'd invite legal trouble by impersonating someone else to access a computer system.

Emails are not people. You can impersonate a person, but you can't impersonate an email. If I own a company and I issue the email dick.less@privateequity.com but then have to fire him... using this email address to transfer company assets back to someone who can be responsible for them isn't fraud (for that purpose, at least). How is this not the same issue?

replies(4): >>44010071 #>>44010085 #>>44010102 #>>44010226 #
3. IshKebab ◴[16 May 25 21:49 UTC] No.44010071[source]▶
If you misrepresent that you are dick.less then yes that would be fraud. They say only the authors can submit withdrawal requests, so you would have to present yourself as the author even though you aren't. That's fraud.
4. a2800276 ◴[16 May 25 21:51 UTC] No.44010085[source]▶
This would be a coherent argument if the paper was submitted by an email address. Instead the paper was submitted by a person. The email address serves to identify the person. Only the person can redact the paper.
5. jand ◴[16 May 25 21:53 UTC] No.44010102[source]▶
> How is this not the same issue?

Although not explicitly stated, i read previous comments as using dick.less@privateequity.com to cancel his personal Netflix account. (Let's say that privateequity.com allowed personal usage of company email.)

I see a difference between accessing an email account and impersonating the previous account holder.

6. mattl ◴[16 May 25 22:12 UTC] No.44010226[source]▶
Are you referring to an email address or an email message here?
7. kevin_thibedeau ◴[16 May 25 22:35 UTC] No.44010380[source]▶
I've done it for people who used my email to sign up for Facebook and Instagram. Presumably now they have a more rigorous verification flow but they used to let people use any email without checking. I can't have a potential criminal using a social account connected to me, so password reset and disable the account is the only rational solution. Obviously this is slightly more problematic for an institution.
replies(2): >>44011032 #>>44011482 #
8. ◴[17 May 25 00:27 UTC] No.44011032[source]▶
9. NikolaNovak ◴[17 May 25 01:59 UTC] No.44011482[source]▶
Nope. Still doing it.

It's infuriating that Instagram, Facebook, etc send a "Email Verification" that has NO option to say "Nope, not me, don't want it, don't do it".

Worse, I'd like to create my own Instagram now, but cannot, because somebody else tried to use my email a decade ago and now all I get is a very very confused loop.

I'm sure these systems make sense to somebody, there's detail and nuance and practicality I'm horribly ignorant of, but they just seem insanely unprofessional to me as an outsider :-/

replies(1): >>44012065 #
10. hawaiianbrah ◴[17 May 25 04:36 UTC] No.44012065{3}[source]▶
> Worse, I'd like to create my own Instagram now, but cannot, because somebody else tried to use my email a decade ago and now all I get is a very very confused loop.

Why not use a different email address? Nothing about that would make it less your “own” Instagram account.