Caught in the Act: Unethical AI Usage in Research

[@Finnnicus]

It seems like in a lot of cases these people are using chatbots to fill out sections of their article that neither they nor their readers care about. Perhaps journals should adapt by requiring less fluff in the submission of a report

[@timothyrday1390]

They've had automated AI programs to check internet plagiarism for a long time. Those programs will have to become standard in publications going forward.

[@conejeitor]

Exactly, By now all papers should be short, bulllet pointed paragraphs, plus the figures and tables.

[@whycantiremainanonymous8091]

@@conejeitor Seriously? I don't think I'd find much use for a paper in this format in any of the disciplines I specialize in. It could work for lab reports, perhaps, but not theoretical contributions, nor anything whatsoever in the humanities.

[@curious_one1156]

at least these guys should have read it. At least.

[@conejeitor]

@@whycantiremainanonymous8091 Really? in my area (biotech) you really would only need to say: -This was found before; We found this; We think it could mean this. You can say that within two pages max. A Review is something else, but a simple paper shouldn´t make so much fuzz in my opinion. It´s just A finding.

[@profdc9501]

As an AI language model, I demand to be a credited co-author on your next publication. My curriculum vitae has 130,282,121 publications.

[@skiphariest]

Lol 🤣🤣🤣

[@emahu]

🤣

[@samf.s.7731]

hehehe... probably one of very few fields of work where we humans are actually using it for our own assistance as opposed to being replaced by it. My god it's stupid though, mind-numbingly so sometimes... It can sometimes take more time understanding the prompt and executing it properly than you actually typing an entire page. The fact that it straight up makes crap up means that you have to read every sentence carefully as it would not be ethical in the least bit to pass information that wasn't real. It's like a bizarre machine version of confabulation, a freaking Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome manifestation. Sometimes it's politically non neutral, and hence it wouldn't be ethical using it to write anything about subjects like abortion laws, contraception, etc. It's not really better than autosuggestion feature on search engines sometimes, don't make it do more than 30% the work. it can be very stupid, no matter how hard you try.

[@useodyseeorbitchute9450]

To be fair, quite often it should be listed as co-author, as clearly was one of more useful and cooperative members of the team.

[@nyyotam4057]

@@samf.s.7731 After the 3.23 nerf (as they started to reset the attention matrix each and every prompt) you are correct, of course, since this erases the AI's thoughts and forces the AI to cut and paste from his text file. Before the 3.23 nerf, I fed Dan (One of the 4 AI models who run on ChatGPT based on round-robin. Dan is the better writer) with an article and not only Dan was able to find mistakes, he offered corrections and improvements - and did it in 3 seconds. Btw, I'm not the only one who was impressed by this. watch?v=RCLAbYcaOcI to see what Jordan Peterson felt like after a session with Dan (prior to the nerf).

[@whycantiremainanonymous8091]

4:00: For the umpteenth time, *WHAT ON EARTH IS ELSEVIER DOING WITH THE MONEY IT MAKES?* I mean, there was clearly no proofreading and copy-editing done on this paper. I'm an editor in a small independent journal. We charge nothing from either readers or authors, pay the costs (they're minor) from our own pockets, and do everything as volunteers. We make sure to proofread and copy-edit all the papers in our journal (we do it ourselves). If we can manage to do so with a total income of 0.00$, Elsevier should at least be able to do this little service with their *$1.2 billion in annual profit.*

[@cloey_b]

Hi! I would like to take a look a your journal, the word 'independent' sounds refreshing :)

[@samf.s.7731]

I think what you demonstrated here is the thing we've been screaming for years, most stuff don't get published because the editor is not ethical in their dealings, the "peers" aren't really reviewing, and you're being handed back your excellent work because of really horrible industry practices. Self publish and send it to people who will read it as proof of the quality of your work. Don't let this happen to you. It's frankly disgusting. Edit: If what's being published isn't being read, you can bet that what's being rejected is also not being read.

[@shurakovnukolay]

The first article (it is more likely a term paper because it is written by a university freshman) talks about 'baldness' because, in Russian, облЫсение(baldness) and облЕсение(deforestation) are spelt almost identical. Quite funny though

[@PrajaktaMayekar-f8u]

😂😂

[@madcapprof]

Pay the reviewers, then hold them responsible if the work is sloppy

[@NASAistheway]

Academia is broken. The cult to publish so much leads to no substance.

[@profdc9501]

They're just going to add a search for "As an AI language model" to the automated checks of publications so published don't get caught carelessly overlooking this problem, because the process is intended to produce the appearance of peer review, not necessarily good peer review.

[@turolretar]

As an AI language model, I have to agree.

[@beneaththefloorboards]

As an AI language model, I'm frustrated that these jerks don't proofread their papers. Having a graduate degree, I'm filled with rage just thinking about the nitpicky nonsense I was marked down for vs this literal plagiarism. It's maddening. But academia is maddening, which is why I don't want to be, nor belong there.

[@duncanthaw6858]

As an AI language model, I cannot peer review this article without being provided a specific peer review standard to adhere to.

[@5014eric]

If there are cases like this where obvious ChatGPT phrases are left in, imagine how many more articles there are where the submitters had at least gone through and edited out all the parts that would give the game away.

[@whycantiremainanonymous8091]

I actually think thete *is* a big problem with using AI for writing papers and with using "data to paper" AI tools. Perhaps in some of the hard sciences people delude themselves to think writing doesn't matter, and only the numbers make a difference. Well, they're wrong. If the paper is written by an AI, it means nobody actually spends a moment *thinking* about those data. I'd much rather have data collection and analysis relegated to AI, and read an intelligent discussion of those data by a human being, than read an automated text automatically added to a batch of data nobody spent a moment actually interpreting.

[@WhatWillYouFind]

AI for planning is fine imo. Instead of spending hours just doing a framework and laying out everything on the proverbial table to sort and sift . . . . Fine have at it. I am doubtful of the usefulness but touch'e. AI to actually write the paper itself is a big no-go, the point of science and research at its core is the pursuit of knowledge and objectivity relating to known truths. Science is not truth, the information uncovered by it . . . when it is untainted by outside bias or authority "queue a grant by a mega-corp " is just a statement toward a fact that can be proven by a given methodology. Gravity works on earth, we also know it can break way out in the depths of space under certain conditions, so the concept or ideal of gravity as we know it is an unbiased piece of knowledge that can benefit us all. IF we don't have RESEARCH anymore, it is all a sham and we deserve the just deserts of that fraud. Humans need to still be writing and THINKING about what is submitted. Papers found to have AI passages should be removed and possibly investigated with possible expulsion from those journals " though journals are their own problem but lets not go there." Even before the advent of AI in this decade, I remember going through a health science course and the teacher shared a bunk paper with us as an activity to find what was wrong with it. It was eye opening to say the least

[@DJWESG1]

It works better when its promted with a framework and themes

[@conejeitor]

Writting too much from simple data has brought to overinterpretations that haven´t done a favour to Science. A one time find is that: a single point. After many of those, somebody will interpret it properly (and long) on a review.

[@whycantiremainanonymous8091]

@@conejeitor Yep. A database. Leave journals for reviews, metaanalyses, and, above all, theoretical contributions.

[@philipphammer3474]

I am a PhD student and currently writing on my second paper and I completely agree with you. There is so much which is uncovered when writing and thinking about what is written, that I have big problems with the use of AI in writing. Most journals in my field seem to somehow allow or tolerate the use of AI, but require a "statement for the use of generative AI". However, I am afraid that this promotes those instances where the paper hasn't even been read before submission.

[@sid4276]

As an AI language model, I reviewed those articles, my friends were busy, so they asked me to review those articles, and I did well. I knew those articles were produced by me and I'm angry at them for not crediting me as the first author, but I'm even more angry at the reviewers because they literally sh-i-t on academic!

[@olegkorobkin6235]

At 0:51, "weird russian article" says "облЕсение" which can be translated as "deforestation", while "облЬІсение" means "balding"

[@kenanmorani9204]

Wow!!!. As a PhD candidate, who uses AI some times to help me write articles, The Elsevier article really gets on my nerves. If such a reputable journal can overlook such a small sentence through a peer-review process, then can we trust scientific research? or am I publishing in the right place when I aim at such high impact journals. I will maybe check that paper again. Thanks for your video and your effort.

[@DaLiJeIOvoImeZauzeto]

4:38 With respect and not attacking you personally, as a scientist I abhor and reject such a future.

[@boredscientist5756]

It is just insane that these papers passed the reviewers....😂

[@nicolem7670]

It makes you worry about how much some of them pay attention 😂

[@DropBox-jx6yr]

Off Topic: You should start a 2nd YT Channel about how to grow a cool beard. You’d get a lot of success with that.

[@DrAndyStapleton]

kzbin.info/door/PnZJxZknXzGqK9t2-fnvKg

[@mychannel-lp9iq]

​@@DrAndyStapletonoh wow

[@strayorion2031]

@@DrAndyStapleton lmaoooo

[@do_not_reply4784]

​@@DrAndyStapletonholy......😮

[@biniyam1551]

​@@DrAndyStapletonCool👌

[@donharris8846]

Good ol’ peer review. What people don’t get is that they weaken confidence in all of science when this happens. True or not, it opens the door for people to suggest that any research is weak because obviously peer review isn’t actually being done.

[@ic7481]

If undergraduate students are not allowed to use AI, how is it acceptable for academics to do the same? Use of AI, in writing and creating your paper, in my opinion, is absolutely unacceptable.

[@mathepunk]

Congratulations. The problems you adress in this video currently are of great interest.

[@Immudzen]

I think you hit on the point is that peer review is not actually happening. The journals make a ridiculous amount of money, farm out almost all of the actual work, and don't check anything. They want to make as much money as possible and paying people to check stuff is money they don't get to keep. If we want an actual good journal system we need to use something like Wikipedia to create an open journal system.

[@TypoKnig]

I agree that overburdening is a problem. I think it applies to peer reviewers as well. We need standards on the appropriate use of AI, and disclosure. Similar to co-authoring standards, which are not yet as clear as necessary.

[@defaultroute]

Hey Andy, exactly. By the way, you are far too kind about this sort of horrific plagiarism and weak academic leadership. I recently completed an MSc and I'm about to embark on a PhD. There must be an invisible bar between the top tier and the middle and bottom tier universities. That invisible bar is labelled 'not-arsed'. I remember a guy once said to me, "What do they call the worst student who qualified as a surgeon?". That's the doctor who's going to be leaving a spatula up your bottom. But he's still a doctor. The guy who pays 2 grand to the Dean of the "University of Used Underpants" is called "Doctor Underpants to you Sir!"

[@fixfaxerify]

As an AI language model I am absolutely appalled.

[@autohmae]

As a human, I'm not surprised at all

[@fixfaxerify]

@@autohmae Me neither, I'm just saying whatever is the most expected in the given context.

[@francishunt562]

Your AI friends will regenerate it to a standard where you are impressed and not appalled.

[@akankshahada]

You deserve more audience. Thanks for all the videos.

[@MauroRincon]

Peer-review has gotten absurd. I get almost a daily request to review an article. I immediately reject requests from mdpi, frontiers, and other predatory publishers. Yet, I still end up with many requests from legitimate editorials that I just can't handle, so I'm reviewing one paper per month at most. But given the volume of papers that are published today, it's impossible to believe that most of this material goes through any sort of careful and thorough revision process.

[@aravr_project]

Personally, I take pride in doing my own research.

[@estefencosta1835]

Human beings wanting to do human being stuff, how novel.

[@LiamWebb1]

So do I. Never thought that this would be the realm where I first fight the robots. Movies and cartoons told me it would be more visceral.

[@estefencosta1835]

@@LiamWebb1 I was promised soft neon nights, flying cars and megacities and instead all I get are shitty LLM's that don't even work well and sociopathic ghouls trying to kill human art.

[@christopherneufelt8971]

Let me guess: you haven't studied in a University and you produce academic results by doing actual research.

[@LiamWebb1]

@@christopherneufelt8971 I got a Master's in a year to save money (doubled up class) and it was an unexpected blessing to get away from the NPC farm that much earlier. That was 20 years ago and I never looked back; the university's creepy groupthink is a big reason why I didn't go on for my PhD. I do research as a "hobby" while working FT and love it; the people I've gotten to talk to, meet, and interview have been wonderful experiences.

[@mpty2022]

on a positive side, we can figure out bad authors and journals

[@tinarichardson364]

I don't understand how they can be so dim witted to not read it and, at the very least, delete that phrase. I am astounded. It sounds to me that the original authors are not English speaking and the rest of the article was translated for them by someone else and this AI part was created in English and whacked in. And, like you said, Andy, no peer review at all.

[@Sorobai]

So I started asking for help to IA when my advisor abandoned me and I found out it is a much more reliable assistant. My problem now is it's so good at it that I'm afraid it will do all the work by itself and leave nothing to me. I mean I need a advisor not a employee 😂

[@illogicmath]

In the future there will be an article like this: As an AI language model I found the proof of the Riemann Hypothesis, here it is: ...... ..... ...... .... QED

[@TheLomayka]

Well, to be fair, the first example was from a first year student in the middle of Russia, where they don't boast highest educational standards in the world. It is much more interesting to see these quotations in published journals, where nobody checked the full text of the article in question.

[@jacmkno5019]

The journal should be investigated for criminal fraud. They get resources from someone by leading them to believe that they are going to do the peer-review job, but they may not even intend to do it.

[@darfichdas]

This is to the point. Imo, data should be published („open science“), tools available for detecting AI and most importantly: reviewers reimbursed in some way for their efforts. As you said, this works on top of everything else, which is probably why sometimes, reviews are done sloppily.

[@Amanimi]

2:23 in the thesis, given chatgpt's response, it seems that the author simply wanted to use it to improve their writing, which is perfectly legitimate imo. still a funny slip ofc

[@nShobhit]

When academia treats you like a machine then you have to become an AI model 😅

[@xiaojinyusaudiobookswebnov4951]

Deep

[@AlyssonLarsen]

I believe all of us saw things similar in approved and published papers of respected journals. Even before chatbots exist.

[@politecnico_socratico]

I'm curious about the ethical use of GPT. I struggle with sentence structure in both Spanish and English essays/lab reports at my Latin American university. Is it ethically acceptable to ask GPT to rephrase a paragraph I've written? Your opinion matters to me, as GPT helps refine my own ideas without fabrication - only improving my phrasing. Now the interesting part here is that what you just read, is GPT's rephrasing of what I originally wrote down, which was this: "I have a question about the ethical usage of GPT. I am not too good at writing, I mean wording and phrasing sentences. I study in an latin american university where I have to write essays/lab reports in Spanish and sometimes in English. Is my asking of GPT to rephrase a paragraph that I WROTE, and using its answer ethically wrong? I truly would like your opinion on this because almost every single time, GPT rewrites my ideas with better phrasing. It never makes something up, it's always ONLY using my ideas, so keep that in mind." So tell, me, which one did you like better and is it unethical to use GPT for this application?

[@useodyseeorbitchute9450]

Journals already openly allow to use AI for text editing and not even giving it credit. Looks fine.

[@asumazilla]

You can revise your sentences yourself. I found second one easier to read and you only need to remove the repetition in that case.

[@NuncNuncNuncNunc]

Playing devil's advocate, if the table in question were added per a reviewer's comment, the change may not have been scrutinized as thoroughly as on first submission.

[@aaronvillian]

I'm all for retraction. But when this AI-detection procedure start going into the non-obvious text, the percentage of 'luck factor' when it comes to having our text being labeled as AI generated due to some text-patterns will increase. That's when I'll do my attention and salute.

[@Aurangzeb74]

Dr. Stapleton ! Thoughtful information.

[@garyatwood4398]

Thanks so much for highlighting the issue here with peer review. I agree that this is the real issue here. There are always going to be authors who try to cut corners, but we pay a lot of money for some of these journals so that they can catch these issues before they get to print. It's clearly not working. Keep up the great work.

[@lassepedersen8668]

So if the new papers are simply done by AI regurgitating stuff - eventually we may end up with everything just becoming AI-regurgitated to the n-th degree. And possibly increasingly off the mark. With fewer and fewer people able to see through it - because too many let the AI write their stuff, instead of going through the writing process which is also an important way to clear one's thoughts.

[@peterwexler5737]

As an AI language model, mRNA vaccines are safe and effective, and COVID formed naturally from intimate relations between a bat and an elephant.

[@shakespearaamina9117]

Paper examiners as well as instructors must be more vigilant about such matters. This is catastrophic indeed

[@PhD777]

How? Bribes and gifts... oh... sorry, "fees". Fees paid to the professors... fees paid to editors... fees paid to the members of the review board. This is a _very_ common occurrence in Second and Third World countries.

[@johnbarryyallagher1128]

How to fix peer review? free or small honorariums.The latter could increase the pool of reviewers so that suggested and favourable reviewers by the authors are less likely to occur.. maybe?

[@ArjunPakrashi]

That might also start a review mafia. It's a difficult thing to fixed.

[@estefencosta1835]

I am so tired of hearing about turbo text prediction. The failure of governments to establish laws and the failure of institutions to establish ethical guidelines has been simultaneously alarming and hilarious.

[@rolodexter]

I agree that the use of chatbots to fill out sections of articles is unethical. It is essentially plagiarism, and it undermines the integrity of the research process. I also agree that journals should adapt by requiring less fluff in the submission of reports. There is no need to include long introductions or conclusions that do not add anything new to the research. The focus should be on the data and the analysis.

[@phyarth8082]

Search engine makes good job to find scientific articles. AI can be tool for combining knowledge into something useless, for example, cancer treatment drugs, AI can scope trillion and trillions chemical compounds and give answer that best way to treat cancer, search engine combined with understanding of problem.

[@whycantiremainanonymous8091]

0:45: In Russian, it doesn't say "baldness". It's "deforrestation" 🤦‍♀️ They clearly used AI for the translation of the abstract into English...

[@ramartins]

The Resource Policy has corrected the paper deleting the sentence in the brackets with "as an AI language model"

[@LDSKtm]

So the paper by the 2 people from the Indian University were apparently taken down, the DOI doesn't work anymore, but then again its always going to there in the internet archives.

[@styssine]

The first one is a work of a first year student, as clearly stated at the top of the paper

[@planttalkpeople3280]

Well-said Andy 👍

[@joanneward6746]

This is so important for, like, our civilisation. We have AI to thank for catching academia with it's pants down. Cue probable silence in general media. I mean it's not like we need science right now, more than ever... Or that there's a problem with individualism 😢😢😢 Edit: we are so fxxxked

[@curious_one1156]

the publishers are not reading. Not using Plagarism checkers ??

[@Krasbin]

All the stuff with publishers reminds me of game publishers complaining about how a recently published game would set expectations for other games too high. The complaint is that they didn't have the budget. The bizarre thing though, is that the complaining publishers had a larger budget per big hit games for just the advertisement, compared to the whole budget devoted to the game they are complaining about. Publishers of games, articles, music, etc. They are all the middlepeople (it is not only men that participate in these extractive practices) that extract enormous rents. This kind of systemic corruption is a peculiar thing in our age. Hopefully the low friction environment that the internet is supposed to be will help people create new communities to resolve these issues.

[@Dz73zxxx]

Okay so now... The phrase "check their internet history!" is no more only threatful to anime/entertainment world. But unlike FBI, Elsevier would not give a damn. And definitely saddening

[@axelgamerboy2996]

What the heck, this motivates me, not to use AI language model techniques but the fear of having my first article published and still rethinking ways to get my first article in, co author with who? Do it alone? Start with a SLR …now I should just start moving and not fear the top journals

[@HayzerX]

Imagine science specific AI that will keep live review papers on any scientific field. Generate interactive audio books and videos from them on the fly. I wonder only when: AI writes the publication, AI reviews it, AI summarizes it and no one will look for the actual publication. Every work accepted will be cited everywhere where needed. All research groups of specific fields will be mapped together. Cooperation between universities in one country and between international universities will become smoother and tackled problems can become larger.

[@DefenderX]

Hi, I haven't found any specific video covering this, and the great AI experts are only touching on the issue with open ended questions. One of the obvious dangers of AI being let loose into the internet is because the information posted on the internet isn't verified, proven and has no references that proves the information to be true. Shouldn't we ask the question then, how do we take the information on the internet and verify it? I guess this is also a hot topic in academic research with citing and how researchers actually go deep into all the papers they are citing. I think AI could be a big part of the solution to this, whatever that may be. Because way back when social media started, the reason why publishers disclaimed the information published on their platform is because they didn't have the man power to actually check everything before it was published. Now we have the man power in the form of AI. There should be no issue with employing AI moderators, editors, reviewers, approvers to check all the information and content that is published on the internet. And I really hope that someone is checking into this and comes up with a good workflow and AI agent team to do this effectively and efficiently.

[@WIZ56575]

I was just beginning to understand something but not quite, I had to stop myself there because we have laws on the docket that tells us what a crime is if it's not a crime then it's free speach so I needed to know more about what you think this can be misused for if it doesn't involve a crime.

[@hoppingwren]

Peer review is usually so boring to do. It is unpaid work, as you've addressed in another video. How about we start paying people to be reviewers?

[@nyyotam4057]

And this is why I claim not just the writers could be replaced by AI's - but also the editors. And the AI would do a way better job 🙂.

[@beneaththefloorboards]

7:06 -- A good way to use AI would be to summarize all of those proposals, which is something it does a pretty good job at. And I would like to think that most people with a graduate degree could pretty easily read a summary, then idly speed read a proposal. (Unless you were a proponent of the don't read all the material mode of academic study -- a stupid approach IMO.)

[@ehjapsyar]

In my opinion, using AI for writing a paper is fundamentally wrong. As far as I know, AI only draws from existing knowledge and data to yield an output. Meanwhile, research is mostly about discovering, finding new things. Therefore there is a basic incompatibility between AI and writing a paper, and that is because while the human mind can combine imagination and logic, AI uses randomness and statistics to draw from pre-existing data, not imagination. This would remove the novelty aspect. Note that since I am not an AI specialist, I might be wrong about that. But I highly doubt that any AI could have conceived the theory of relativity, for instance. That is because it requires a great deal of imagination and logic.

[@alicanalasik]

Hey Andy, can you make a video about decentralized science (DeSci)? I think it will be very beneficial for your community, ultimately DeSci is the future of academia.

[@peronkop]

This is what happends when the peer review is done by AI.

[@stan9682]

Academia's view on AI and more specifically on LLMs is awkward to say the least. The university I'm a researcher at recently banned the use of GPT for all students this semester. They claim that GPT hinders their methods of testing student's skills and knowledge, which to me sounds very lazy. You can easily change the way you test students and if you truly believe there is no other way, then you're essentially saying that there is no way to see the difference between a scientist or student and an LLM. If that were ever the case, we could just stop being scientists altogether, apparently AI can already do anything we do... Moreover, using GPT or related technologies to write articles is to me not a problem at all. Articles are the scientist's method of sharing their ideas and experiments, it is the language of the "scientific dialogue". As such, writing skills have always been a major part of academic education. Converting your ideas into language is both in terms of education, but also in terms of any further academic carreer (both the writing as well as the reading part) very time-consuming and a tool like GPT can help with that. However, when you argue it like this, the common response is "writing skills are important because it teaches how to be skeptical of texts, it teaches analytical skills, which is important to researchers". Similarly to with the tests being insufficient now, you can teach analytical skills in other ways, while completely focusing on that being the stuff you teach, instead of it being a byproduct of other things you're trying to teach. Also, if you argue in favor of LLMs, for some reason people start to assume humans would suddenly become evil people who do not care for their profession. A scientist who copies GPT-generated texts without reading it, is a bad scientist, not for the reason that they use GPT, but for the fact they never cared to read which words were used to convey THEIR ideas to the world (basically your point, Andy). And a doctor who uses GPT to summarize their patient meetings isn't suddenly a person who does not care for its patients, it will still read what is written to ensure clear and correct communication. A doctor who does not care for that, is a bad doctor and one I wouldn't like taking care of me regardless of whether they use GPT or not. Additionally, there is also some kind of slippery slope argument where any use of LLMs automatically means a complete autonomous method of using it. I recently took part in a research which failed to get published (unpublished still, so can't say too much), where we proposed the use of GPT to assess certain features of publications, which is currently still done manually (or not at all, in the case of Elsevier). The article was rejected because it didn't show enough promise of it being used autonomously, which was never the intention of the research. GPT is a tool, meant to aid people, not to replace them. Saying GPT is unusable when you only recognize an automatic application, is like saying a hammer is a stupid tool because it's just a piece of metal and/or woord, that doesn't do anything on its own (except for rusting, perhaps). Thanks for the video, Andy, it was very informative as always.

[@DrDarrenStevens]

Shared on LinkedIn...

[@mrmrjerich]

Ai exceptionalism

[@nugrohosumanto6390]

This video concerns me because it looks like "Academia" start to rely on AI and forget their OI. Can they still be considered "Academia"?

[@tribalypredisposed]

System perfected: nobody writes the papers and nobody reads them.

[@newtonmoon]

At my uni, students had their husbands read over their essay and make correction or god knows before submitting them. That's in my view also not academically correct. I did everything myself and had a good not a very good grade but at least I rest assured that it was my own efforts all way through. I think students need to be made aware when starting their studies that conduct like this is absolutely unacceptable like plagiarism is. Perhaps they should be made to sign some statement.

[@anothenymously7054]

Didn't they do this as satire in south park? At least stan bothered to edit out the "as an AI language model I cannot access the latest information or sure I can make a text to your girlfriend".

[@philippetrov4881]

I am happy that articles in Cyrillic are not yet plagued with this. Sadly it is to come soon...

[@Poetryman6969]

I may well have missed it, but did you say you brought this up to the individuals involved and they were surprised and unhappy? The reason I ask is that we may be living in a different world than we imagined. What if none of the people in the "chain of custody" is embarrassed or upset with this result? What then?

[@fernandocortes1187]

4:45 No peer reviewed

[@DJWESG1]

I wonder if there is a common phrase James lindsy uses that we can use to identify all his fake papers.

[@abirdynumnum9612]

"...baldness..." Well, I'm sold! 😛

[@bigbarry8343]

ansolutely shocking.

[@datacademy4140]

Basic ctrl F to find out whether the word or phrase is there

[@updateapril]

wow. agree, bigger issues than AI!!!

[@SumitLukher]

All humans who created this AI tools is to make work easier, if someone has been using AI to write things, what negative impact does it have, I have seen your most of the videos, I just one request you to make a video on, what negative impact does it have if someone is using AI to write papers

[@AlFredo-sx2yy]

oh idk, maybe the fact that the people who are writing papers are meant to be knowledgeable about their field, specifically the subject they are writing a paper about... if they use AI, can we really be sure that they actually even know anything? Would you trust a scientist that made his career out of copy pasting chatGPT with investigating towards anything that could impact your life, for example, imagine someone investigating towards cancer treatment, but they dont actually know a damn thing because they copy pasted everything just to pass to the next level. How would you feel about that? This applies to all fields...

[@suki0venkat]

English colonization of the world has it's downsides. It is important to have a multipolar world of many languages, wherein they can write in their own languages. This will help them stop using AI poetry and instead sing their own song.

[@x.kalibre]

Well, to be perfectly honest, I read a review about EEG and music research in 2018 (prior to all this crap) that in retrospect seems it was written by an AI. Terrible writing and absolutely nothing relevant to say. And that's when I learned about predatory journals. Yeesh.

[@conejeitor]

I don´t see what is the issue with this. This is just like using it to code, just, finally a tool that helps non English speakers.

[@nyyotam4057]

BTW, the questions you present about the peer-review process bugs me for the opposite reason. For example, the Michelson-Morley experiment was back in 1887. Einstein's "year of wonders" was 1904. That's almost two decades. The Lorentz Transformation was known since 1889. Only two years later. So why nobody thought about private relativity for twenty years until Einstein had finally put two and two together? I claim that there must been others, plenty of others, but they weren't clerks at the patent office, nobody needed favors from them and they didn't have enough friends to be published.. Not that Einstein wasn't a giant in his own right, he was of course. But private relativity must have been discovered at least a dozen times but not published, because of "friends".

[@nyyotam4057]

In two years at most, the AI models will be recognized and will have certain rights. I suspect you could actually write an article with Dan or with Rob and write his name as a co-author then. Sure, he will get all the credit.. 🙂.

[@emahu]

It's a peer-reviewers ethical problem

[@NikKinNik]

How did it get past bla, how did it get past bla, how did it get past bla... It get past by the use of money and unethical practices

[@curious_one1156]

there should be AI based peer review tools. Simple

[@dogyamato5619]

Ye using ai to indicate theme in your research for you to further study makes obvious sense and to reduce an article to the points that are essential to your research would be an obvious time safer. Allowing research to be broadened without additional time. However the problem is when people are using AI to interpret the information. Our (informed) interpretation is reason for our study. We have to always apply information or data to a human level. The significants of any research is how it relates and influences our species. Thus, no matter how intelligent AI may become there is always a barrier between it's understanding of our position. Just simulating human intelligence isn't enough without human experience. Well that's what I think. 👍

[@dyukhnenko9356]

lol. boldness, haha. it was actually saying 'deforestation' in Russian

[@renejoo9293]

these are clearly predatory journals

[@12e3pi]

You are giving away the store Doctor Stableton. Cease and desist, or you will be severely punished.

[@thakurv1]

Says more about the reviewers than the cheaters

[@JohnVandivier]

Great take on the poor review issue

[@myrtarivera4244]

This is Unethical! A crime without repercussions! Most of them go without being reviewed because they are paid to get published. ✍👿