3 ms·
That's been my experience with the site, too, which made me raise my eyebrow at the article's claim of "first-hand testimonials that have been vetted for authen
by rideontime 3y ago
That's been my experience with the site, too, which made me raise my eyebrow at the article's claim of "first-hand testimonials that have been vetted for authenticity and accuracy." If the data's such junk (which I surely won't argue with), why study it?
e: From the original paper:
> Rigorous quality control is conducted by trained experts with careful consideration given to “quality, credibility, and focus on effects or outcomes” (www.erowid.org). By means of that mechanism, all reports that provided the basis for the present investigation have successfully exceeded a standard quality filter.
Totally.
- dylan604 3y agoI once had a disagreement with a lead dev for an in-house tool that was a glorified DAM. their forms were not kept up to date, and so users were forced to enter bad data which skewed query results. when pressed about why the fields were forced to choose from an outdated pre-populated enum, i was told "bad data is better than no data". maybe the AI researchers are from the same school of thought. having bad/unvetted medical data/advice on psychedelics would be better than no data at all, right? /s