"Our research indicates that AI will be a boon to science and increase output by a gajillion percent!"
(five minutes later)
"We regret to inform you that AI will not actually improve scientific research because we made up all the research that said so with AI."
(five minutes later)
"We regret to inform you that AI will not actually improve scientific research because we made up all the research that said so with AI."
Reposted from
Michael Clemens
AYFKM
There is special circle of hell for those who fabricate data
Immeasurable harm to all of us who break our backs to collect real data, to brilliant students who deserved that position, to other students who won’t get trust they deserve — just obscene
There is special circle of hell for those who fabricate data
Immeasurable harm to all of us who break our backs to collect real data, to brilliant students who deserved that position, to other students who won’t get trust they deserve — just obscene
Comments
https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/16/wiley_journals_ai/
The research has been completed using AI at great expense and at the last minute.
Do they exist now? No, we’re still in the “technological innovation for porn” phase with those.
Essentially nobody had double checked the work, nobody looked over the methodology and nobody had replicated the results.
But outlets like WSJ ran with it, because "AI" bubble.
"AI" as it's currently presented is a probability matrix, devoid of sense or thought. If it makes something that seems like a thought, that's because mathematical analysis of text shows those words are more likely to go together in the requested context.
It's a parlor trick.
This new generation of AI is an exponential increase in energy use and resources for a very small gain. Everything calling it revolutionary is just hopes and dreams atp.
It's. A. Marketing. Lie.
There. Is. No. AI. Technology. It. Can't. Think. It. Will. Never. Be. Able. To. Think.
Do. You. Understand.
Hell, the last term I used was blatantly stolen from a thing too limited to get out of an imaginary pool to continue pseudo-existence.
Why do you keep calling it that? Is it like saying “Kleenex” just fits in conversation better?
There's no governing intellect to determine veracity or feasibility, just sentences being glued together from shredded text.
You can't get hundreds of billions of investment dollars for Autocorrect Plus.
Verb: Algorithmic generation
Those terms were there and used but everyone glomped onto "AI" when there's no intelligence involved, artificial or natural.
I just see a lot of it as the next step in that honestly. But then they shovel stuff they don't have permission for into it.
So we can now conclude that this is bullshit?