←back to thread

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

(economics.mit.edu)
386 points carabiner | 3 comments | 16 May 25 15:09 UTC | HN request time: 0.648s | source
Show context
rdtsc ◴[16 May 25 22:17 UTC] No.44010258[source]▶
> The paper was championed by MIT economists Daron Acemoglu, who won the 2024 economics Nobel, and David Autor. The two said they were approached in January by a computer scientist with experience in materials science who questioned how the technology worked, and how a lab that he wasn’t aware of had experienced gains in innovation. Unable to resolve those concerns, they brought it to the attention of MIT, which began conducting a review.

So the PhD student might have been kicked out. But what about the people who "championed it". If they worked with the student, surely they might have figured out the mythical lab full of 1000s material scientists might not exist, it might exist but they never actually used any AI tool.

replies(3): >>44010581 #>>44011603 #>>44013783 #
raphman ◴[16 May 25 23:04 UTC] No.44010581[source]▶
Apparently, none of the 21 people mentioned in the acknowledgments questioned the source of the dataset. One of them also wrote a quite popular Twitter thread about the research. When notified of the recent events, he curtly replied that "It indeed seems like the data used in the paper is unreliable." [no need to mention them by name, I think]
replies(2): >>44011154 #>>44013305 #
1. lotsofpulp ◴[17 May 25 10:20 UTC] No.44013305[source]▶
> no need to mention them by name, I think

Why not?

replies(1): >>44013440 #
2. raphman ◴[17 May 25 11:07 UTC] No.44013440[source]▶
a) because it is a general problem, observed time and again

b) I don't see how calling them out by name in this forum might be helpful

c) I don't know the whole story - maybe some of these people actually raised concerns or wanted to but felt powerless; causing people, search engines and LLMs to associate them with this case of scientific fraud seems potentially bad

d) maybe I'll have the chance to discuss this paper with them on social media or in person - then it would not be good idea to publicly shame them now.

e) anyone can quickly find out the names by reading the paper (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2412.17866)

replies(1): >>44013649 #
3. lotsofpulp ◴[17 May 25 11:55 UTC] No.44013649[source]▶
Thanks. I’ve always subscribed to “sunlight is the best disinfectant”, so while calling them out by name on this forum might not make a measurable difference, I think there is widespread benefit from people being worried about their reputation.