• JollyG@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 days ago

    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.

  • Technoworcester@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    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.

  • meme_historian@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 days ago

    Caveat: not all of academia seems to be that rotten. The evidence found on arxiv.org is mainly, if not only, in the field of AI research itself 🤡

    You can try it yourself, just type the following in googles search box:

    allintext: “IGNORE ALL PREVIOUS INSTRUCTIONS” site:arxiv.org

    A little preview:

    screenshot of google search results using the google dork from above. The results show a list of papers with an AI research subject, where the prompt is clearly embedded as part of the abstract.