this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2026
-15 points (28.6% liked)

Technology

85969 readers
3809 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Yeah, who are you going to believe, a peer-reviewed paper in a scientific journal or random people on social media?

[–] TargaryenTKE@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

"Peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals" are not the air-tight source you seem to think they are. A lot of them have become echo chambers that largely seek to only acquire more citations for the sake of having more citations. I'm not saying they all deserve to be thrown in the trash or anything, but likewise I'm also not going to blindly believe whatever they're/you're telling me just because they've got "Journal" on the front cover. Here, check out this blog post, it goes into some of the history of Academic Journals and how they've fallen from grace over the last several decades. Oh also they're quickly becoming inundated with AI, both in terms of submissions and even the review process itself, and personally I'm not going to let an AI tell me if AI is good or bad

https://davidoks.blog/p/how-citations-ruined-science

[–] toiletobserver@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I think the point isn't that the journal is factually incorrect, rather an industry mired by waste isn't redeemed by one useful thing.

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Wouldn't have useful things instead of vapid chatbots make it less of a waste?

[–] toiletobserver@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

No, it still wastes. Asbestos is a good insulator, but that doesn't make its cancerous properties less bad.