![](/static/66c60d9f/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://programming.dev/pictrs/image/170721ad-9010-470f-a4a4-ead95f51f13b.png)
spoiler
asdfasdfsadfasfasdf
asdfasdfsadfasfasdf
asdfasdfsadfasfasdf
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
asdfasdfsadfasfasdf
My main gripe, though, is with the oversight (or lack thereof) in the peer review process. If a journal can’t even spot AI-generated images, it raises red flags about the entire paper’s credibility, regardless of the content’s origin.
The crux of the matter is the robustness of the review process
The pace at which AI can generate bullshit not only currently vastly outstrips the ability for individual humans to vet it, but is actually accelerating. We cannot manually solve this by saying “people just need to catch it.” Look at YT with CSAM or other federal violations - they literally can’t keep up with the content coming in despite having armies of people (with insane turnover I might add) trying to do it. So the bar has been changed from “you can’t have any of this stuff” to “you must put in reasonable effort to minimize it,” because we’ve simply accepted it can’t be done with humans - and that’s with the assistance of their current algorithms constantly scouring their content for red flags. Bear in mind this is an international, massive company with resources these journals can’t even dream of and almost all this content has been generated and uploaded by individual people.
These people I’m sure are perfectly capable of catching AI generated nonsense most of the time. But as the content gets more sophisticated and voluminous, the problem is only going to get worse. Stuff is going to get through. So we are at a crossroads where we throw up our hands and say “well there’s not much we can do, good luck separating the wheat from the chaff,” or we get creative. And this isn’t just in academic journals either. This is crossing into more and more industries, in particular if it requires writing. Someone(s) is throwing money and resources at getting AI to do it faster and cheaper than people can.
This is incredibly tryhard. It was decent - even if I somewhat disagree - for the first couple of sentences. Then it just feels like a high schooler’s attempt at humor.
asdfasdfsadfasfasdf
asdfasdfsadfasfasdf
This is a great post with great resources. Thanks for sparking this - got some books I’ll be grabbing!
asdfasdfsadfasfasdf
asdfasdfsadfasfasdf
I don’t know, sometimes I put that when I think people are going to assume I am trolling/stirring the pot when I am, in fact, genuinely curious. I use it in particular when I am engaging with something I don’t feel like I know a lot about. though I understand how the term has become loaded because bad actors will feign ignorance/curiosity in order to hide their intentions and make the person there talking to look bad
They’re not actually asking for it, they’re making a point about the problem. The person they’re responding to is basically going “those images exist tough shit.”
Do you have any evidence that indicates his offer isn’t genuine?
It doesn’t matter who killed more. That’s why this never ends. “My tragedy is worse than your tragedy” is never productive. It just serves as an (incorrect) argument for why it’s permissible for one group to keep committing atrocities while the other group has to suffer it and be the first to bury the hatchet. Then the script flips and everyone does it again from their respective positions. It never ends.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
spoiler
asdfasdfsadfasfasdf