←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. PeterStuer ◴[] No.46183010[source]
I think the root problem is that everyone involved, from authors to reviewers to publishers, know that 99.999% of papers are completely of no consequence, just empty calories with the sole purpose of padding quotas for all involved, and thus are not going to put in the effort as if.

This is systemic, and unlikely to change anytime soon. There have been remedies proposed (e.g. limits on how many papers an author can publish per year, let's say 4 to be generous), but they are unlikely to gain traction as thoug most would agree onbenefits, all involved in the system would stand to lose short term.