Edit: so the bluesky post wasn’t accurate. The fake papers were never published, they were pre-prints, and were written to be obviously fake if you paid any attention to read it. LLM didn’t have the ability to tell, some researchers took LLM’s output and didn’t check the source material.
Don’t know what to say. Also kinda ironic this bluesky user apparently didn’t know the difference between a preprint and a published paper either.
Original post:
(I’ve only read the title. If turns out I am terribly mistaken I will come back and correct myself). More like scientists commit academic fraud and fooled a bunch of people. How did this get through the ethics board? Why would any publisher play along with this?
I mean, if you make a paper public you can say it was published. It’s no longer 1440, you don’t need a publisher with a printing press to publish something.
Edit: so the bluesky post wasn’t accurate. The fake papers were never published, they were pre-prints, and were written to be obviously fake if you paid any attention to read it. LLM didn’t have the ability to tell, some researchers took LLM’s output and didn’t check the source material.
Don’t know what to say. Also kinda ironic this bluesky user apparently didn’t know the difference between a preprint and a published paper either.
Original post:
(I’ve only read the title. If turns out I am terribly mistaken I will come back and correct myself). More like scientists commit academic fraud and fooled a bunch of people. How did this get through the ethics board? Why would any publisher play along with this?
I mean, if you make a paper public you can say it was published. It’s no longer 1440, you don’t need a publisher with a printing press to publish something.
“published” means a very specific thing in academic circles. a paper has to go through peer review to be published.
We are on lemmy, not Harvard.