3 ms·

I think it's interesting that AI is probably unintuitively good at spotting fraud in papers due to their ability to hold more context than majority of humans. I

I think it's interesting that AI is probably unintuitively good at spotting fraud in papers due to their ability to hold more context than majority of humans. I wish someone explored this to see if it can spot academic fraud that isn't in their training data already.

BDPW 10mo ago
LLM's still make stuff up routinely about things like this so no there's no way this is a reliable method.
- kachapopopow 10mo ago
  It doesn't have to be reliable! It just has to flag things: "hey these graphs look like they were generated using (formula)" or "these graphs do not seem to represent realistic values / real world entrophy" - it just has to be a tool that stops very advanced fraud from slipping through when it already passed human peer review. The only reason why this is helpful is because humans have natural biases and/or inverse of AI biases which allow them to find patterns that might just be the same graph being scaled up 5 to 10 times.
  - BDPW 10mo ago
    I hope I'm wrong but I haven't seen anything like this in practice. I would imagine we have the same problem as before where we could use it as an extra filter but the amount of shit that comes out makes the process not actually any more accurate, just faster. Having seen from close-up how these reviews go, I get why people use tools like this unfortunately. it doesn't make me very hopeful for the near future of reviewing.
    - kachapopopow 10mo ago
      that's why I wanted someone to actually do a real test to see if it has even a shred of accuracy since that means it could be improved upon in the future.
- ratg13 10mo ago
  Nobody should be using AI as the final arbiter of anything. It is a tool, and there always needs to be a user that can validate the output.
conartist6 10mo ago
It sounds like it's better at putting the fraud into science than at getting it out

3 ms·

I think it's interesting that AI is probably unintuitively good at spotting fraud in papers due to their ability to hold more context than majority of humans. I

by kachapopopow 10mo ago

BDPW 10mo ago
LLM's still make stuff up routinely about things like this so no there's no way this is a reliable method.
- kachapopopow 10mo ago
  It doesn't have to be reliable! It just has to flag things: "hey these graphs look like they were generated using (formula)" or "these graphs do not seem to represent realistic values / real world entrophy" - it just has to be a tool that stops very advanced fraud from slipping through when it already passed human peer review. The only reason why this is helpful is because humans have natural biases and/or inverse of AI biases which allow them to find patterns that might just be the same graph being scaled up 5 to 10 times.
  - BDPW 10mo ago
    I hope I'm wrong but I haven't seen anything like this in practice. I would imagine we have the same problem as before where we could use it as an extra filter but the amount of shit that comes out makes the process not actually any more accurate, just faster. Having seen from close-up how these reviews go, I get why people use tools like this unfortunately. it doesn't make me very hopeful for the near future of reviewing.
    - kachapopopow 10mo ago
      that's why I wanted someone to actually do a real test to see if it has even a shred of accuracy since that means it could be improved upon in the future.
- ratg13 10mo ago
  Nobody should be using AI as the final arbiter of anything. It is a tool, and there always needs to be a user that can validate the output.
conartist6 10mo ago
It sounds like it's better at putting the fraud into science than at getting it out