3 ms·

What a distraction, when the full context was specifically: > AI-generated papers, Cabanac argued, are often used to pad an academic’s résumé with more publica

What a distraction, when the full context was specifically: > AI-generated papers, Cabanac argued, are often used to pad an academic’s résumé with more publications and citations: “You buy a paper on a topic of your choice, and you buy a set of 500 citations. Then you go to your faculty and you say, ‘Look, I’m a genius, and I deserve this position as a full professor.’” In other words, like Facebook slop, the content of the content isn’t really as important as its presence — or, more accurately, its measurability. If you think that buying a LLM-generated paper is the same as grammar assistance then those "academic sites, and other scholarly sites" you praised will not actually provide "quality training material" you expect. Furthermore, my overall point is that the article describes why there is good demand for the material, which you straight-out said it did not do.

OutOfHere 2y ago
I find this hard to believe because putting out a new paper fundamentally requires new data or at least a thorough review. One can't legitimately put out a paper if they don't have at least one of these two things. AI can write survey articles, it can suggest avenues for new research, and it can convert data into a paper, but it cannot create real-world data from scratch, at least not without conducting a real-world experiment. Does this make sense?
- eesmith 2y ago
  Your incredulity tells me you haven't been following the issue at all. You assume people always want to put out a legitimate paper. Read Retraction Watch for examples of researchers who don't. https://retractionwatch.com/papers-and-peer-reviews-with-evidence-of-chatgpt-writing/ https://retractionwatch.com/papers-and-peer-reviews-with-evi... has a list of papers where a generative AI was almost certainly used, but it use wasn't reported, and some of the papers were clearly not legit. For example, https://pubpeer.com/publications/CAABBF887348FB2D1C0329E0A27BE6 https://pubpeer.com/publications/CAABBF887348FB2D1C0329E0A27... . The first sentence of the introduction starts "Certainly, here is a possible introduction for your topic", and commenters also discovered that the authors reported the same data for multiple papers.

OutOfHere 2y ago

I find this hard to believe because putting out a new paper fundamentally requires new data or at least a thorough review. One can't legitimately put out a paper if they don't have at least one of these two things. AI can write survey articles, it can suggest avenues for new research, and it can convert data into a paper, but it cannot create real-world data from scratch, at least not without conducting a real-world experiment. Does this make sense?

eesmith 2y ago
Your incredulity tells me you haven't been following the issue at all. You assume people always want to put out a legitimate paper. Read Retraction Watch for examples of researchers who don't. https://retractionwatch.com/papers-and-peer-reviews-with-evidence-of-chatgpt-writing/ https://retractionwatch.com/papers-and-peer-reviews-with-evi... has a list of papers where a generative AI was almost certainly used, but it use wasn't reported, and some of the papers were clearly not legit. For example, https://pubpeer.com/publications/CAABBF887348FB2D1C0329E0A27BE6 https://pubpeer.com/publications/CAABBF887348FB2D1C0329E0A27... . The first sentence of the introduction starts "Certainly, here is a possible introduction for your topic", and commenters also discovered that the authors reported the same data for multiple papers.