this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2025
200 points (97.6% liked)
science
18155 readers
33 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So at least 22 papers from the study were AI generated and not checked afterwards.
This says more about ~~the authors~~ the AI users who claim authorship than about AI.
i am not in any way qualified to say what i'm about to say, so you should probably just stop reading.
awt awt awt awt a tawr tat awt aw ta awrt gawr tgar a aiuknalrghber,jhmngbae,rkjgaat aawt aaaera r aw aergaaegaebaen,rjhbae,rjgabear aw awr awr aw awert
Nyarlathotep? Is that you?
you're just flirting with me because you want me to show you me cartouche
Can't it be both?
okay, buy i'm going to stand by my typo. it's gonna be a ginger cartouche. i hope you're ready
Iä iä!
Just imagine how many slip through the cracks
At least one major paper did, although it used AI images instead of text.
There was a paper with AI generated diagrams that not only passed peer review somehow, btu was published in a pretty major reputable journal.
You'd have normally expected them to catch it in peer review and decline to publish, especially as they took it down later.
Nothing in the Frontiers is reputable among scientists. It gets linked a lot on Reddit because it's open access, but scientists tend to view it as essentially the not-actually-peer-reviewed equivalent of a preprint. In the past, if all reviewers recommend rejection at Frontiers, the editor would be forcibly assigned new reviewers by the publishing staff. This would continue until the manuscript would get accepted. Not sure if that's still the same (I've blocked all Frontiers emails), but it's not correct to call a Frontiers journal a major reputable journal.