5 ms·

Note this is the asbtract, so please let's not debate the abstract... The link to download the paper is here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_

Note this is the asbtract, so please let's not debate the abstract... The link to download the paper is here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5870623 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5870623

njhnjh 9mo ago
[flagged]
- bayindirh 9mo ago
  It's funny how many of us know the shortcomings of AI, yet we can't be bothered to do the thing ourselves and read or at least skim a in-depth research paper to increase our depth. Even if we don't agree with what we read, or find its flaws. Paradox of the century. P.S.: Using ChatGPT to summary something you don't bother to skim while claiming AI is a scam is the cherry on top.
- cybersquare 9mo ago
  It's ok, I'll just read the AI summary...
- rpdillon 9mo ago
  I read the entire paper a couple of days ago and have done a lot of work to critique it because I think it is flawed in several ways. Ironically, this AI summary is actually quite accurate. You're getting down voted because posting AI output is not condoned, but that doesn't mean that in this case it is not correct.
  - Sharlin 9mo ago
    They're getting downvoted because without even taking a look at the paper, they felt that "please create a summary of the stupid, bad faith, idiot, fake science paper" is a reasonable way to ask for a summary.
    - rpdillon 9mo ago
      Okay, but does anybody care that the paper that's in the link doesn't substantiate its central claim with empirical evidence?
rpdillon 9mo ago
I already debated this on HN when this was posted two days ago, but this paper is not peer-reviewed and is a draft. The examples it uses of DOGE and of the FDA using AI are not well researched or cited. Just as an example, they criticize the FDA for using an AI that can hallucinate whole studies, but they don't talk about the fact that it's used for product recalls, and the source that they use to cite their criticism is an Engaget article that is covering a CNN article that got the facts wrong, since it relied on anonymous sources that were disgruntled employees that had since left the agency. Basically what I'm saying is the more you dig into this paper, the more you realize it's an opinion piece.
- bayindirh 9mo ago
  This is what drafts for. It's either a very rough draft with some errors and room for improvement, or a very bad draft sitting on the wrong foundation. Either way, it's an effort, and at least the authors will learn to not to do.
  - yunohn 9mo ago
    No, it’s definitely not what drafts are for. Fundamental issues of the nature pointed out by the parent comment are way too serious to make it into a draft. Drafts are for minor fixes and changes, as per the usual meaning of the word draft.
- tucnak 9mo ago
  Not only it's an opinion piece disguised as scientific "Article" with veneer of law, it has all the hallmarks of quackery: flowery language full of allegory and poetic comparisons, hundreds of superficial references from every area imaginable—sprinkled throughout, including but not limited to—Medium blog posts, news outlets, IBM one-page explainers, random sociology literature from the 40's, 60's and 80's, etc. It reads like a trademark attorney—turned academic got himself interested in "data" and "privacy," wrote a book about it in 2018, and proceeded to be informed on the subject of AI almost exclusively by journalists from popular media outlets like Wired/Engaget/Atlantic—to bring it all together by shoddily referencing his peers at Harvard and curiously-sounding 80's sociology. But who cares as long as AI bad, am I right?
randusername 9mo ago
> Institutions like higher education, medecine, and law inform the stable and predictable patterns of behavior within organizations such as schools, hospitals, and courts., respectively,, thereby reducing chaos and friction. Hard to take seriously with so many misspellings and duplicate punctuation. I vibe with the general "AI is bad for society" tone, but this argument feels a lot to me like "piracy is bad for the film industry" in that there is no recognition of why it has an understandable appeal with the masses, not just cartoon villains. Institutions bear some responsibility for what makes AI so attractive. Institutional trust is low in the US right now; journalism, medicine, education, and government have not been living up to their ideals. I can't fault anyone for asking AI medical questions when it is so complex and expensive to find good, personalized healthcare, or for learning new things from AI when access to an education taught by experts is so costly and selective.
- omnicognate 9mo ago
  > Hard to take seriously with so many misspellings and duplicate punctuation. Very bad writing, too, with unnecessarily complicated constructions and big words seemingly used without a proper understanding of what they mean (machinations, affordances).

njhnjh 9mo ago

[flagged]

bayindirh 9mo ago
It's funny how many of us know the shortcomings of AI, yet we can't be bothered to do the thing ourselves and read or at least skim a in-depth research paper to increase our depth. Even if we don't agree with what we read, or find its flaws. Paradox of the century. P.S.: Using ChatGPT to summary something you don't bother to skim while claiming AI is a scam is the cherry on top.
cybersquare 9mo ago
It's ok, I'll just read the AI summary...
rpdillon 9mo ago
I read the entire paper a couple of days ago and have done a lot of work to critique it because I think it is flawed in several ways. Ironically, this AI summary is actually quite accurate. You're getting down voted because posting AI output is not condoned, but that doesn't mean that in this case it is not correct.
- Sharlin 9mo ago
  They're getting downvoted because without even taking a look at the paper, they felt that "please create a summary of the stupid, bad faith, idiot, fake science paper" is a reasonable way to ask for a summary.
  - rpdillon 9mo ago
    Okay, but does anybody care that the paper that's in the link doesn't substantiate its central claim with empirical evidence?

rpdillon 9mo ago

I already debated this on HN when this was posted two days ago, but this paper is not peer-reviewed and is a draft. The examples it uses of DOGE and of the FDA using AI are not well researched or cited. Just as an example, they criticize the FDA for using an AI that can hallucinate whole studies, but they don't talk about the fact that it's used for product recalls, and the source that they use to cite their criticism is an Engaget article that is covering a CNN article that got the facts wrong, since it relied on anonymous sources that were disgruntled employees that had since left the agency. Basically what I'm saying is the more you dig into this paper, the more you realize it's an opinion piece.

bayindirh 9mo ago
This is what drafts for. It's either a very rough draft with some errors and room for improvement, or a very bad draft sitting on the wrong foundation. Either way, it's an effort, and at least the authors will learn to not to do.
- yunohn 9mo ago
  No, it’s definitely not what drafts are for. Fundamental issues of the nature pointed out by the parent comment are way too serious to make it into a draft. Drafts are for minor fixes and changes, as per the usual meaning of the word draft.
tucnak 9mo ago
Not only it's an opinion piece disguised as scientific "Article" with veneer of law, it has all the hallmarks of quackery: flowery language full of allegory and poetic comparisons, hundreds of superficial references from every area imaginable—sprinkled throughout, including but not limited to—Medium blog posts, news outlets, IBM one-page explainers, random sociology literature from the 40's, 60's and 80's, etc. It reads like a trademark attorney—turned academic got himself interested in "data" and "privacy," wrote a book about it in 2018, and proceeded to be informed on the subject of AI almost exclusively by journalists from popular media outlets like Wired/Engaget/Atlantic—to bring it all together by shoddily referencing his peers at Harvard and curiously-sounding 80's sociology. But who cares as long as AI bad, am I right?

randusername 9mo ago

> Institutions like higher education, medecine, and law inform the stable and predictable patterns of behavior within organizations such as schools, hospitals, and courts., respectively,, thereby reducing chaos and friction. Hard to take seriously with so many misspellings and duplicate punctuation. I vibe with the general "AI is bad for society" tone, but this argument feels a lot to me like "piracy is bad for the film industry" in that there is no recognition of why it has an understandable appeal with the masses, not just cartoon villains. Institutions bear some responsibility for what makes AI so attractive. Institutional trust is low in the US right now; journalism, medicine, education, and government have not been living up to their ideals. I can't fault anyone for asking AI medical questions when it is so complex and expensive to find good, personalized healthcare, or for learning new things from AI when access to an education taught by experts is so costly and selective.

omnicognate 9mo ago
> Hard to take seriously with so many misspellings and duplicate punctuation. Very bad writing, too, with unnecessarily complicated constructions and big words seemingly used without a proper understanding of what they mean (machinations, affordances).