4 ms·
Sorry to be uncool and try and explain away the joke, but. I'm reading three parts to this.. one is the risk to the job of researches, by the impacts of the sys
by totetsu 11d ago
Sorry to be uncool and try and explain away the joke, but. I'm reading three parts to this.. one is the risk to the job of researches, by the impacts of the systems that they have typically used until now, by being flooded with texts that look like research articles, but are produced by llms.. another is a critique of that system in the first place, in the interaction of both for profit publishing, and research funding based on measuring of publishing in those for-profit journals..
and then there is also a concern about theft of work, and plagiarism, by AI providers, ingesting pre-published work, and training on it, and additionally those providers maybe acting as gate-keepers or .. imposing their own normative values or being opaque and not impartial in how they operate..
Did I parse that correctly?
- encyclopediai 11d agoYes. The main idea visible through this pile of problems is that human ingenuity (of the management) will find a way to use anything for more money (publishers) or more prestige (academic researchers). The mathematicians who complain now had no worries about the way the generous idea of open access turned into the gold open access, where the author pays for publication. These people have no problems with the phd students who are forced to publish or perish and even if they survive there is no future for them. Now the problem is IMO that for the first time the interest of the publishers and academics are not aligned. Publishers want more articles to sell back to the academics. Academics are pushed by the system to publish more. But all the work is done by academics who write and review the articles. And also a huge inflation of articles devalue the publication unit. So a CAPTCHA idea is only natural, even if the kind of a malefic idea a manager could have.