But by just shouting, “AI is at it again with its antics!” at every turn instead of looking further and at other core issues we will only make things worse.
I think this is a very unfair characterization of what I and others have voiced. This has always been a fundamental issue when talking to AI-evangelists, which you may not be but your argument seems to fall in line with. There is this inherently defensive posture I find whenever a critique is levied of AI, yet if I were so protective of something like the internal combustion engine, people would (rightfully) raise eyebrows. I agree that AI is a tool and often it is just widening cracks that exist, but we need to deal with these issues on multiple fronts and acknowledge that reckless adoption exacerbates the issue. And the new front that AI has opened up is scale. The ability for even someone with a modest, home-rolled LLM to just flood the internet with a bunch of crappy blog spam is outrageous and wasn’t even a possible 5 years ago. One person can do the damage of a thousand. Run a cursory google search and see what SEO + AI blog spam has wrought.
By characterizing it as “this was already an issue it’s not AI fault” is overly reductionist at its core. It’s passing the buck and saying that AI in no way, shape, or form, bears any responsibility for the problem. That just means we aren’t looking critically at what is a ultimately a tool and how it can be used for harm.
But fake papers have been increasingly an issue for well over a decade as far as I am aware.
Yes but these articles were not nearly as prolific. We are talking orders of magnitude more crap to sift through already occurring across many industries. It has never been this bad. Give the journals 1000 people and 100x the budget and eventually they will still be overcome. It’s not just “fix the review process.” It’s a complicated issue that is exploited in multiple ways.
I feel like this is the third time people are selective reading into what I have said.
I specifically acknowledge that AI is already causing all sorts of issues. I am also saying that there is also another issue at play. One that might be exacerbated by the use of AI but at its root isn’t caused by AI.
In fact, in this very thread people have pointed out that *in this case" the journal in question is simply the issue. https://beehaw.org/comment/2416937
In fact. The only people likely noticed is, ironically, the fact that AI was being used.
And again I fully agree, AI is causing massive issues already and disturbing a lot of things in destructive ways. But, that doesn’t mean all bullshit out there is caused by AI. Even if AI is tangible involved.
If that still, in your view, somehow makes me sound like an defensive AI evangelist then I don’t know what to tell you…
If you feel several people are selectively reading what you’re writing then you should consider what about your writing is perhaps contributing to the misinterpretation/selective reading. It’s not like we are working in concert.
but that doesn’t mean all bullshit out there is caused by AI
Again, you are mischaracterizing what I and others have said. No one asserted that. Quote where I said anything remotely like that.
The only irony I’m seeing is your seemingly engaging in the behavior you’re decrying.
Would you like me to quote every single one of your lines, line by line, and respond to them? Is that the kind of conversation you want to have? Or can you use common sense and infer that I am reading everything and responding to the things I think are worth responding to, which is pretty standard behavior in human conversations?
I am taking issue with elements of your comments. You are wholesale claiming I - and others - said things I/they did not, and then ignoring when I ask you to stop doing it or show me where I said whatever you accused me of.
When did anyone say
But by just shouting, “AI is at it again with its antics!” at every turn instead of looking further and at other core issues we will only make things worse”
Or
that doesn’t mean all bullshit out there is caused by AI
Who said those lines? Where are they? I’m not hiding behind “I didn’t personally say it.” I understand basic Internet thread etiquette. If you are reaffirming somebody else’s comment, you are generally standing behind most if not all of what they said. But nobody here is saying or doing the things you are claiming. You are tilting at windmills.
You can infer that either I consider the thing I did not specifically mention not worth mentioning, or I agree enough to not warrant debating it. This is like basic social etiquette dude. I am pointing out the specific elements I find objectionable and want to discuss. How meta do I need to get here?
I think this is a very unfair characterization of what I and others have voiced. This has always been a fundamental issue when talking to AI-evangelists, which you may not be but your argument seems to fall in line with. There is this inherently defensive posture I find whenever a critique is levied of AI, yet if I were so protective of something like the internal combustion engine, people would (rightfully) raise eyebrows. I agree that AI is a tool and often it is just widening cracks that exist, but we need to deal with these issues on multiple fronts and acknowledge that reckless adoption exacerbates the issue. And the new front that AI has opened up is scale. The ability for even someone with a modest, home-rolled LLM to just flood the internet with a bunch of crappy blog spam is outrageous and wasn’t even a possible 5 years ago. One person can do the damage of a thousand. Run a cursory google search and see what SEO + AI blog spam has wrought.
By characterizing it as “this was already an issue it’s not AI fault” is overly reductionist at its core. It’s passing the buck and saying that AI in no way, shape, or form, bears any responsibility for the problem. That just means we aren’t looking critically at what is a ultimately a tool and how it can be used for harm.
Yes but these articles were not nearly as prolific. We are talking orders of magnitude more crap to sift through already occurring across many industries. It has never been this bad. Give the journals 1000 people and 100x the budget and eventually they will still be overcome. It’s not just “fix the review process.” It’s a complicated issue that is exploited in multiple ways.
I feel like this is the third time people are selective reading into what I have said.
I specifically acknowledge that AI is already causing all sorts of issues. I am also saying that there is also another issue at play. One that might be exacerbated by the use of AI but at its root isn’t caused by AI.
In fact, in this very thread people have pointed out that *in this case" the journal in question is simply the issue. https://beehaw.org/comment/2416937
In fact. The only people likely noticed is, ironically, the fact that AI was being used.
And again I fully agree, AI is causing massive issues already and disturbing a lot of things in destructive ways. But, that doesn’t mean all bullshit out there is caused by AI. Even if AI is tangible involved.
If that still, in your view, somehow makes me sound like an defensive AI evangelist then I don’t know what to tell you…
If you feel several people are selectively reading what you’re writing then you should consider what about your writing is perhaps contributing to the misinterpretation/selective reading. It’s not like we are working in concert.
Again, you are mischaracterizing what I and others have said. No one asserted that. Quote where I said anything remotely like that.
The only irony I’m seeing is your seemingly engaging in the behavior you’re decrying.
The fact that you specifically respond to this one highly specific thing. While I clearly have written more is exactly what I mean.
shrugs
Would you like me to quote every single one of your lines, line by line, and respond to them? Is that the kind of conversation you want to have? Or can you use common sense and infer that I am reading everything and responding to the things I think are worth responding to, which is pretty standard behavior in human conversations?
I am taking issue with elements of your comments. You are wholesale claiming I - and others - said things I/they did not, and then ignoring when I ask you to stop doing it or show me where I said whatever you accused me of.
When did anyone say
Or
Who said those lines? Where are they? I’m not hiding behind “I didn’t personally say it.” I understand basic Internet thread etiquette. If you are reaffirming somebody else’s comment, you are generally standing behind most if not all of what they said. But nobody here is saying or doing the things you are claiming. You are tilting at windmills.
You can infer that either I consider the thing I did not specifically mention not worth mentioning, or I agree enough to not warrant debating it. This is like basic social etiquette dude. I am pointing out the specific elements I find objectionable and want to discuss. How meta do I need to get here?