Doctor M. PopularArXiv announces a ban on AI content and the responses are hilarious.
> You expect us to actually read the papers we cite?!
yes, lol!
https://www.404media.co/new-arxiv-rules-ai-generated-papers-ban/
FediThing 
@FediThing I think he means it. He certainly is doubling down on X https://x.com/JimDMiller/status/2055277720326529036
James Miller (@JimDMiller) on X
@tdietterich @arxiv So this means you expect every author to check every citation and make sure that every citation is real and accurate? What if it's beyond the ability of one of the authors to verify one of the citations because that citation is in a language he doesn't know or concerns technical
clewAlso, what he thinks publication credit is for.
Sassinake! α βͺ β© βor analysis. Or reading. Or brains.
Li ~ Crystal System@clew @FediThing @docpop i suppose* just for saying 'i made this' ??? except if your using an AI thats ... debatable
Jennifer Moore π·He said further down in the thread what he thinks citations are for:
"The citations are there to help readers who want to learn more about a sub topic, quickly locate new papers. They also function as a business suit, signaling that you're a serious person."
(yikes)
and various people have replied to that saying no that is not, in fact, what they are for!
How is he a professor? π±
<<FIVENAME>>@FediThing @unchartedworlds @docpop The bar to be one is maybe not as high as it should be? (That's how I hope to sneak in as one, maybe!)
SeiΓ°r@DamonHD @FediThing @unchartedworlds @docpop There are universities and colleges and then there are "universities" and "colleges". Have you read about "Trump university"?
QCCEγ―γͺγΉ@DamonHD @Illuminatus @FediThing @unchartedworlds @docpop "The announcement on arxiv regarding rejection of high probability papers written with AI, has observed a new professor consistent with the characteristic anti-professor, with a local statistical significance exceeding 5-sigma."
It's similar to post-docs or even candidates for PhDs who don't see the difference between theory and hypothesis.
soc
John Quiggin@unchartedworlds @FediThing @docpop
Most notably, in the academic context, they are there to acknowledge previous research on the topic, and position the paper's contribution to this body of research. Hell hath no fury like an academic uncited.
congusbongusgames@unchartedworlds @FediThing @docpop so all those Wikipedia nerds adding [citation needed] tags just want more reading material? TIL wow lmao
Violet Madder@unchartedworlds @FediThing @docpop
Okay, THIS SHIT RIGHT HERE is a fundamental problem on the scale of holy fuck we are not on the same planet morally or ethically or intellectually right now and it's honestly quite terrifying, bad.
We're entering the age of "AI" with jackasses that don't understand the basic value of consent, citations, or clean fucking air to breathe. This is what we're up against.
Average@unchartedworlds @FediThing @docpop
"citations are there just to look cool, and to make others think that i am a serious person" - deeply unserious person
BrazMogu (i.e. Bruno Guedes)@unchartedworlds @FediThing @docpop "They also function as a business suit, signaling that you're a serious person."
Oh, yea, that checks out
Escape plan@unchartedworlds
I think this guy needs to go back to year 7 English and write an essay on a fiction book. He might learn what a quote or reference is for....
Then again he might just get an llm to write it and then hand it in not seeing the problem with that.
ΰ²ΰ²Ώΰ²°ΰ²Ύΰ²ΰ³ πΉβπΎβπ±π΅πΈ (he/him)
ScriptFanixπ
@chiraag Strong vibes of "wait. you mean I actually have to do the work I want credit for?"
@FediThing @docpop
@FediThing @docpop
Chris Silverman π»@docpop @FediThing I'm an xcancel fan, so I figured I'd share the link here:
https://xcancel.com/JimDMiller/status/2055277720326529036
This Miller character, if he's real, is beyond help. Farther down, he basically says that "AI-hallucinated inaccuracies are better than human inaccuracies because the AI inaccuracies are going to be so obviously wrong that no one would take them seriously."
I think I'm starting to see why he's so up in arms about the prospect of his scientific work, as it were, being held to higher standards.
Ed@csilverman @docpop @FediThing
FYI (if you aren't aware), the Libredirect browser extension is a wonderful thing. Set it up once and never accidentally wind up in the Xitter again.
mjc0961@csilverman Incredibly rare Community Notes W
Adriano@docpop @FediThing Well, his point is *slightly* more nuanced in that he's arguing "What if *I* checked the citations I added, but this other guy I co-author with did not on his part of the paper? Why am I responsible?"
To which I reply "sucks to be you, my guy."
@docpop @FediThing
To be clear, this is the same kind of argument as "What if I need to shout the N-word to save a baby from being crushed by a bus?", and the like.
To be clear, this is the same kind of argument as "What if I need to shout the N-word to save a baby from being crushed by a bus?", and the like.
Chaucerburnt@adriano @docpop @FediThing I think what some people miss, possibly intentionally, is that "responsible" doesn't mean "if your co-author fabricates stuff and lies to you, you will be drummed out of academia even if you had no way of knowing".
It just means that one will be expected to take reasonable steps to avoid such situations, and to remedy them when they emerge.
Jaicup@chaucerburnt @adriano @docpop @FediThing if you are publishing research isn't reading and understanding the state of the research step 1?
Erin
Benjamin Braatz@adriano @docpop @FediThing Depending on what is usual in his academic field, his thoughts are maybe less βHow the f is he a professor?!?β outlandish than the Fedi commenters here think.
For papers with lots of authors and quite strict division of labour for different parts of the paper and different sub-groups of authors, I can very well see that it maybe has not been usual up to now to know every other author and double check their work.
Still seems net positive to me to reinforce responsibility for things with your name on it.
Dark Phoenix πΊπ¦π¨π¦π¬π±π΅π¦π΅πΈπ³οΈβπ@HeptaSean @adriano @docpop @FediThing signing your name on a document is a big deal. I worked in engineering before retiring, and I was asked to fix something that was so screwed up I had to completely redo EVERYTHING, and the designer insisted on something that wasn't a good idea. But he insisted. So I did the work, but I refused to sign my name.
Helle, Queen of Dissociation 
@adriano @docpop @FediThing I mean not just that, you stuck your name on it, you are just as responsible for the whole thing. Credit goes both ways.
Codey McCodeface@adriano @FediThing @docpop βYou co-authored a paper with a bad scientist. Why should we trust your judgment anymore?β
iwein@docpop @FediThing he is (not very elegantly) asking if it's ok to delegate the responsibility to a co-author, I think. Not worth dog piling on this one imho.
jack@FediThing @docpop the chap's a PhD π
sarcoptus scabium@FediThing @docpop classic stanford guy.
C.B.Leslie@docpop Jesus.
@docpop Funny how AI-related policy changes are revealing deeper problems that existed before AI was an issue.
Like, Dietterich's text would make perfect sense even in a world where AI never existed. And I wouldn't want to imagine the reaction if blue-check-guy here was a student, asking that question to a teacher/professor in, say, the context of a class on how to properly structure academic writing.
This isn't an "AI" thing, it's a "some people don't belong in science and never did" thing.
Fabian Transchel@csilverman @docpop It's almost like broken incentives lead to unintended consequences...
David J. Atkinson@csilverman @docpop Science is mostly about studious retraction of failed hypotheses for rework or in favor of an alternative. It is very hard for some people to understand that they might be wrong. Others just want the publications. Both types are not doing science. I donβt begrudge anyone their tools but I do insist that authors own what they claim. You canβt blame tools or the scientific method. Tom Dietterich is right on target.
Joe Heafner@docpop One problem with contemporary physics textbooks is that authors rarely, if ever, read and check the original sources by Einstein and others and proceed to perpetuate misconceptions that we as faculty must repeatedly engage with in our classrooms. It wastes our time and confuses students. This has been a thing long before arXiv or AI so I'm quite sympathetic.
@Darkphoenix @docpop There are sometimes physics errors in physics textbooks too.
@docpop Also, isn't this rather a high school level expectation?
@ftranschel @docpop Had to look up scnr then it made sense. π¬
Babys in a thundercloud π³ββ§οΈβ―ο΄@docpop Power move LMAO
Em & future cats πΊπ¦ππ³οΈβπ@docpop I thought thatβs why you cited them πΉ
Or have I read the memo wrong π€
(Completely sarcastic here πΉ)
Or have I read the memo wrong π€
(Completely sarcastic here πΉ)