←back to thread

504 points puttycat | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
theoldgreybeard ◴[] No.46182214[source]
If a carpenter builds a crappy shelf “because” his power tools are not calibrated correctly - that’s a crappy carpenter, not a crappy tool.

If a scientist uses an LLM to write a paper with fabricated citations - that’s a crappy scientist.

AI is not the problem, laziness and negligence is. There needs to be serious social consequences to this kind of thing, otherwise we are tacitly endorsing it.

replies(37): >>46182289 #>>46182330 #>>46182334 #>>46182385 #>>46182388 #>>46182401 #>>46182463 #>>46182527 #>>46182613 #>>46182714 #>>46182766 #>>46182839 #>>46182944 #>>46183118 #>>46183119 #>>46183265 #>>46183341 #>>46183343 #>>46183387 #>>46183435 #>>46183436 #>>46183490 #>>46183571 #>>46183613 #>>46183846 #>>46183911 #>>46183917 #>>46183923 #>>46183940 #>>46184450 #>>46184551 #>>46184653 #>>46184796 #>>46185025 #>>46185817 #>>46185849 #>>46189343 #
CapitalistCartr ◴[] No.46182385[source]
I'm an industrial electrician. A lot of poor electrical work is visible only to a fellow electrician, and sometimes only another industrial electrician. Bad technical work requires technical inspectors to criticize. Sometimes highly skilled ones.
replies(5): >>46182431 #>>46182828 #>>46183216 #>>46184370 #>>46184518 #
andy99 ◴[] No.46182431[source]
I’ve reviewed a lot of papers, I don’t consider it the reviewers responsibility to manually verify all citations are real. If there was an unusual citation that was relied on heavily for the basis of the work, one would expect it to be checked. Things like broad prior work, you’d just assume it’s part of background.

The reviewer is not a proofreader, they are checking the rigour and relevance of the work, which does not rest heavily on all of the references in a document. They are also assuming good faith.

replies(14): >>46182472 #>>46182485 #>>46182508 #>>46182513 #>>46182594 #>>46182744 #>>46182769 #>>46183010 #>>46183317 #>>46183396 #>>46183881 #>>46183895 #>>46184147 #>>46186438 #
1. Aurornis ◴[] No.46182485[source]
> I don’t consider it the reviewers responsibility to manually verify all citations are real

I guess this explains all those times over the years where I follow a citation from a paper and discover it doesn’t support what the first paper claimed.