3 ms·
Why maximize paperclips when terms like "vegetative electron microscopy" could be trending in the literature.
by cwmoore 4y ago
Why maximize paperclips when terms like "vegetative electron microscopy" could be trending in the literature.
- DoctorOetker 4y agoFor those who didn't read the article, or for those who did, but didn't follow its link to the PubPeer thread containing the "vegetative electron microscopy" observation: https://pubpeer.com/publications/7C9F0CCD493B1129135A3A918B0AAB# https://pubpeer.com/publications/7C9F0CCD493B1129135A3A918B0... Search the page for the term and you'll see the relevant comment. The term seems to stem from an OCR cluster-mishap, where a valid scientific document was once OCR'ed incorrectly. The page has 2 columns of text and the left column has a running sentence 'ending' with "vegetative" before continuing on the next line in the same column. But at the same height in the column on the right a sentence continues, visually starting with "electron microscopy". The term is entirely meaningless in the field. This isn't just "using a little ChatGPT to brush up my English" at all. Other comments point out that the contents of abstract and article don't even match, the abstract being about bacteria but the article contents about gene delivery... I don't need convincing that ML will have tremendous positive impact in math and science disciplines, it's obvious, but the way ML was used in this case is not a defensible usage.
- roundandround 4y agoYeah, from the article I get the sense that he is often agreeing to add his name to papers for network affect, perhaps even as the main author.. So his own criteria for what he writes may be factual, but seems a bit off topic for what a reader should expect on seeing his name.
- catchnear4321 4y agoTo be free of this pain.