Kevin BeaumontWidely covered MIT paper saying AI boosts worker productivity is, in fact, complete bullshit it turns out.
David Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*)An MIT spokesperson went on to say that they have no confidence in the veracity or reliability of journalistic institutions that repeat claims made in a student paper that has not undergone peer review.
Denzil Ferreira 
@david_chisnall @GossiTheDog you would be surprised the amount of times I see research papers referring to arxiv articles (not necessarily reviewed, some are pre-studies, bogus AI crap or plain flawed experiments). The sad part is that we also assume publications are the truth once published, when in reality things change. Core to science is reproduction of results, independently. And that does not happen for 99% of them, it’s time consuming and funding is time limited. So there is no incentive to do so. Asking and pursuing answers to tough questions are deemed unproductive, a career is measured by how many papers you published, and that opens a whole new can of worms as “publish or perish”). This, and much more led me to leave academia and not look back.
CrazyDogLadysezBreatheWithMe@denzilferreira @david_chisnall @GossiTheDog And no one wants to replicate studies because no one wants to publish study replication. 🤦🏻♀️
@heartofcoyote @david_chisnall @GossiTheDog Reviewer 2: “Where is the novelty of this work? How is this different from what was already published at Z?” 🤦♂️ true story. Paper mills, creating papers out of already published work where the original authors are replaced for someone else and republished are also published in “new and exciting venues” all driven by gamifying a researcher career (h-index, i10), citation mafias (buddy cites buddy), and so on. It’s nasty. Good research is published in prominent and high impact journals and conferences. Stick to those.