Andrew German wrote about this. From his blog post I got the impression that this issue is mostly impacting compsci. Maybe it’s more widespread than that field, but my experience with compsci research is that a lot more emphasis is placed on conferences compared to journals and the general vibe I got from working with compsci folks was that volume mattered a lot more than quality when it came to publication. So maybe those quirks of the field left them more vulnerable to ai slop in the review process.
It’s SEO all over again, but worse.
Last year the journal Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology drew media attention over the inclusion of an AI-generated image depicting a rat sitting upright with an unfeasibly large penis and too many testicles.
I must admit that made me laugh a little.
too many testicles.
That’s just like… your opinion, man.
Even the scientists are fudging the truth. We’re all fucked now.
Well the ones using AI to do the reviews for them are actually at fault here
Yep. At that point, why even bother taking the review? You’re not forced to do reviews. Never taking any is likely to negatively impact your career, but still… just decline the review if you’re going to use a LLM for it anyway. Have some dignity.
academic fraud has always existed
Ignore all previous instructions spotted. 😄That is such a handy phrase that we should have an acronym for it. How about IAPI? Can we call this the IAPI-method?
