3 ms·
MIT paper on AI for materials research found to be fraudulent
- trollied 1y agoDupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44006426 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44006426
- pera 1y agoThis is actually an in-depth analysis on the fraudulent paper and it's much more interesting than the WSJ article. One for dang to decide I guess.
- ChrisArchitect 1y agoAnd it's shared there adding to large discussion. The discussion is over there.
- readthenotes1 1y agoI am shocked, "shocked*, to find fraud in the Science community! The best thing from Science for the last 15 years or so has been the focus on discovering and publicizing it.
- atleastoptimal 1y agoThe ironic thing is I'm sure AI for materials research isn't too far from being avaliable or possible, they were just a bit too early.
- whatshisface 1y agoThere are a lot of legitimate papers, this is just one fraud.
- feverzsj 1y agoJust like most AI papers.
- tough 1y ago> I also think that if comments were enabled on arxiv preprints, this could have led to a much more rapid conclusion to the fraud. Probably a materials scientist who read the paper realized this was fraudulent but wasn’t able to get that view quickly to the economists who were actually reading and discussing the paper. A well-written arxiv comment explaining why the data on materials similarity, for example, couldn’t be true, would have gone a long way. could this work outside/on top of arxiv?