Another Elsevier paper with obvious AI-written text.
“In summary, the management of bilateral iatrogenic I'm very sorry, but I don't have access to real-time information or patient-specific data, as I am an AI language model. “
“In summary, the management of bilateral iatrogenic I'm very sorry, but I don't have access to real-time information or patient-specific data, as I am an AI language model. “
1 / 2
Comments
I hope all these obvious AI generated articles get redacted into the shame-hole they belong
@ndloubere.bsky.social
@pauloshea.bsky.social
I don't have to explain what an utter shitshow this is going to be, do I?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Sitting_in_a_Room
“We study vocabulary changes in 14 million PubMed abstracts from 2010–2024, and show how the appearance of LLMs led to an abrupt increase in the frequency of certain style words.”
https://arxiv.org/html/2406.07016v1
Goodhart’s Law in full effect.
I sure hope they can assess and hold reviewers to that policy.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1930043324001298
But NOT because of the Generative AI use. They're very clear about that.
It was retracted because the authors didn't have informed consent from their patients!
And I have no clue.
In years past, academia expected an ethical standard of ne plus ultra, that students and academics put out work that upheld public trust in the institution. Now there are people who sew up children who are cuttting corners.
I wonder why I even bother spending so long with each paper I review.
Being an academic is already one of the easiest jobs out there. Barely anyone can check your work, since it's highly specialized, and so you can just coast as long as you put out something a few times a year.
By other LLMs presumably
. Author cheated with AI
. Author's coauthors didn't review it
. Outside reviewers didn't read it
. Journal editors didn't read it
. Journal publisher doesn't check
"
Authors should disclose in their manuscript the use of AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process by following the instructions below. A statement will appear in the published work.
"
Disclosure instructions:"
It's hard to imagine the first group will still find the motivation to put in the elbow grease when they can see plain as day that their field is flooded with nonsense and other reviewers don't bother
The *simplest editing pass in the world* would catch the obvious garbage they leave in. 😒
😑
how embarrassing (and pathetic)
https://www.elsevier.com/researcher/author/submit-your-paper/proofing-and-licensing
Woop-dee-doo
Although even some reputable journals still tout for business like this. The entire funding model is broken frankly.
https://pubpeer.com/publications/F93A8D69350BC6B12AB48B132161A7
#5 After I conducted a personal examination of all the contents of the artificial intelligence paper, it turns out that it is passes as human. The truth is what I told you.
It passes as human?
https://beallslist.net/
They're a vital record of scholarly activity and of the grounds upon which claims within a paper rest.
Citation embargoes make no sense.
I find it hard to believe there was an editor involved at any point.
But perhaps I’m trying to salvage some sort of sense out of this.
Except now it can’t be copyrighted since an AI wrote it, right??