5 ms·

I mean if the dude submitted the work without the permission of the actual lead authors that's a pretty big violation, which also could explain in part why the

I mean if the dude submitted the work without the permission of the actual lead authors that's a pretty big violation, which also could explain in part why the methodology was so bad.

az226 3y ago
But that’s something they should deal with internally. It is quite strange actually. The statement should also come from MIT’s public affairs office and not the professors themselves. So it looks like they are big mad and acting on their own to save face.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
rsfern 3y ago
The person who submitted to arxiv (and promoted the paper on Twitter) is one of the senior authors (listed last in the author block), so I don’t think that’s an excuse for publishing to arxiv before doing due diligence on methodology Apparently some of the other profs were not in the loop about the arxiv submission though
- stefan_ 3y ago
  Senior author is a euphemism for "happens to run the lab". Explains why the other "senior authors" are lashing out, they never expected having to know what a paper that bears their name is all about.
  - rsfern 3y ago
    Sure - the point is that the preprint wasn’t posted by a student without permission of their advisor, it was posted by a professor without (apparently) permission of their collaborators, who aren’t part of a monolithic lab for what it’s worth. However, I generally agree with your take, and the response seems to me to kind of dodge the responsibility for methodology issues. that responsibility is not really compatible with the “hey we’re submitting to arxiv in a few days, last chance for comments” approach to collaboration that seems to be the minimum expected bar for signing off on the submission form that all authors are aware and agree to publication
    - sheepscreek 3y ago
      Posted by a lecturer, not a professor I believe.
      - rsfern 3y ago
        He’s an associate professor at BU, and I guess a lecturer at MIT
  - YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
    That's nonsense. Senior authors may not contribute text to the paper but they will normally be involved in every other way - reading drafts, making recommendations, directing the research. I know it's standard on HN to accuse senior academics of exploiting their PhD students and I'm pretty sure there is plenty of that to go around but it is a very rare PhD student that can write a publishable paper without advise and guidance from their advisor. The name gives a hint, even. I'm speaking in this as a recently graduated PhD student btw. I don't have any conflicts of interest (well, not yet, hopefully). It sucks that many students have absolutely rotten relations with their advisors but that's exactly because the student depends so much on the advisor for direction that it's easy for the power differential to be exploited by unscrupulous individuals.
    - stefan_ 3y ago
      The main thrust of their complaint (as paper authors!) is that they used the "copyrighted" exam questions. I don't understand how both can be true: to have contributed to this paper, which entirely rests on ChatGPT (not) answering exam questions, and not knowing that that is what the paper is all about. That is certainly an issue that would be discovered well before anyone is sitting down to write the actual paper.
  - dgacmu 3y ago
    This may be true in some fields but it's generally not the case in academic computer science. (Generally.)
- a_bonobo 3y ago
  >Apparently some of the other profs were not in the loop about the arxiv submission though Sounds more like they're throwing the one senior prof under the bus to protect their own faces; saying 'I didn't agree to preprint submission' would be the first excuse I'd come up with. At that point, they had been majorly involved in the research, if they were not involved in the preprinting they must have seen several drafts at least, at which point they could've asked to get taken out. But they didn't do that, and that's telling.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - rsfern 3y ago
    I tend to agree, but it’s hard to know exactly how it went down from our outsiders perspective. They’re implying that they asked for changes before submission, and that they weren’t given a final call to ask for their names to be removed if it came to that. Personally I would be less skeptical about this version of events with more transparency about whatever technical issues they had with the manuscript
simplesamp 3y ago
The paper is in Neurips template and was possibly submitted to the conference. And now other authors are complaining when other people pointed to it.

I mean if the dude submitted the work without the permission of the actual lead authors that's a pretty big violation, which also could explain in part why the methodology was so bad.

az226 3y ago

But that’s something they should deal with internally. It is quite strange actually. The statement should also come from MIT’s public affairs office and not the professors themselves. So it looks like they are big mad and acting on their own to save face.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

rsfern 3y ago

The person who submitted to arxiv (and promoted the paper on Twitter) is one of the senior authors (listed last in the author block), so I don’t think that’s an excuse for publishing to arxiv before doing due diligence on methodology Apparently some of the other profs were not in the loop about the arxiv submission though

stefan_ 3y ago
Senior author is a euphemism for "happens to run the lab". Explains why the other "senior authors" are lashing out, they never expected having to know what a paper that bears their name is all about.
- rsfern 3y ago
  Sure - the point is that the preprint wasn’t posted by a student without permission of their advisor, it was posted by a professor without (apparently) permission of their collaborators, who aren’t part of a monolithic lab for what it’s worth. However, I generally agree with your take, and the response seems to me to kind of dodge the responsibility for methodology issues. that responsibility is not really compatible with the “hey we’re submitting to arxiv in a few days, last chance for comments” approach to collaboration that seems to be the minimum expected bar for signing off on the submission form that all authors are aware and agree to publication
  - sheepscreek 3y ago
    Posted by a lecturer, not a professor I believe.
    - rsfern 3y ago
      He’s an associate professor at BU, and I guess a lecturer at MIT
- YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
  That's nonsense. Senior authors may not contribute text to the paper but they will normally be involved in every other way - reading drafts, making recommendations, directing the research. I know it's standard on HN to accuse senior academics of exploiting their PhD students and I'm pretty sure there is plenty of that to go around but it is a very rare PhD student that can write a publishable paper without advise and guidance from their advisor. The name gives a hint, even. I'm speaking in this as a recently graduated PhD student btw. I don't have any conflicts of interest (well, not yet, hopefully). It sucks that many students have absolutely rotten relations with their advisors but that's exactly because the student depends so much on the advisor for direction that it's easy for the power differential to be exploited by unscrupulous individuals.
  - stefan_ 3y ago
    The main thrust of their complaint (as paper authors!) is that they used the "copyrighted" exam questions. I don't understand how both can be true: to have contributed to this paper, which entirely rests on ChatGPT (not) answering exam questions, and not knowing that that is what the paper is all about. That is certainly an issue that would be discovered well before anyone is sitting down to write the actual paper.
- dgacmu 3y ago
  This may be true in some fields but it's generally not the case in academic computer science. (Generally.)
a_bonobo 3y ago
>Apparently some of the other profs were not in the loop about the arxiv submission though Sounds more like they're throwing the one senior prof under the bus to protect their own faces; saying 'I didn't agree to preprint submission' would be the first excuse I'd come up with. At that point, they had been majorly involved in the research, if they were not involved in the preprinting they must have seen several drafts at least, at which point they could've asked to get taken out. But they didn't do that, and that's telling.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- rsfern 3y ago
  I tend to agree, but it’s hard to know exactly how it went down from our outsiders perspective. They’re implying that they asked for changes before submission, and that they weren’t given a final call to ask for their names to be removed if it came to that. Personally I would be less skeptical about this version of events with more transparency about whatever technical issues they had with the manuscript

simplesamp 3y ago

The paper is in Neurips template and was possibly submitted to the conference. And now other authors are complaining when other people pointed to it.