ChatGPT contributing to current science papers

[RonO]

https://phys.org/news/2024-08-junk-ai-scientific-publishing.html

Several examples of scientists using AI to write papers with AI
generated mistakes that passed peer review. I noted before that ChatGPT
could be used to write the introductions of papers, sometimes, better
than the authors had done. One example of a figure manipulation
indicates that some authors are using it to present and discuss their
data. That seems crazy. ChatGPT doesn't evaluate the junk that it is
given. It just basically summarizes what they feed into it on some
subject. I used a graphic AI once. I asked it to produce a picture of
a chicken walking towards the viewer. It did a pretty good job, but
gave the chicken the wrong number of toes facing forward. Apparently
junk like that is making it into science publications.

With these examples it may be that one of the last papers that I
reviewed before retiring earlier this year was due to AI. It was a good
introduction and cited the relevant papers and summarized what could be
found in them, but even though the authors had cited previous work doing
what they claimed to be doing, their experimental design was incorrect
for what they were trying to do. The papers they cited had done things
correctly, but they had not. I rejected the paper and informed the
journal editor that it needed substantial rewrite for the authors to
state what they had actually done. What might have happened is that the
researchers may have had an AI write their introduction, but it was for
what they wanted to do, and not for what they actually did. English was
likely not the primary language for the authors, and they may not have
understood the introduction that was written. If they had understood
the introduction, they would have figured out that they had not done
what they claimed to be doing. Peer review is going to have to deal
with this type of junk. The last paper that I reviewed in March came
with instructions that the reviewers were not to use AI to assist them
with the review, but it looks like reviewers are going to need software
that will detect AI generated text.

Ron Okimoto

[JTEM]

Post by RonO
Several examples of scientists using AI to write papers with AI
generated mistakes that passed peer review.

If you're only finding out now that "Peer Review" is heavily
flawed, you haven't been paying attention.

THE BIGGEST PROBLEM is that when one ever hear of one type of
mistake: When "Peer Review" validates garbage. What also
happens and you NEVER hear about is when "Peer Review"
silences good science, keeps it out of print.

[RonO]

Post by JTEM

Post by RonO
Several examples of scientists using AI to write papers with AI
generated mistakes that passed peer review.

If you're only finding out now that "Peer Review" is heavily
flawed, you haven't been paying attention.
THE BIGGEST PROBLEM is that when one ever hear of one type of
mistake:  When "Peer Review" validates garbage. What also
happens and you NEVER hear about is when "Peer Review"
silences good science, keeps it out of print.

Peer review has it's flaws, but there is absolutely no doubt that it is
the best means we have for giving research it's first pass evaluation.
Peer review can be manipulated (Sternberg and Meyer), and groups of
researchers have been exposed for recommending each others papers for
peer review (some journals ask the authors to recommend possible peer
reviewers in their field).

Peer review doesn't just catch flawed research, but reviewer suggestions
nearly always make a paper better than it initially was. It is rare for
any paper to be accepted without reviewer comments that need to be acted
on. I have only had 2 papers accepted as submitted without
modification. They are my 3rd and 4th most cited papers (576 and 360
citations according to google scholar). The first paper was the first
such example for all involved even my major professor. The second was
the first such example for all but 3 of 16 authors. My guess is that
the majority of researchers never experience such an event. I wrote the
initial draft of the first paper, and my major professor suggested a
bunch of revisions, and then he suggested revisions of the revisions for
multiple subsequent drafts. He often did this. One of his students
screamed in his face after an extended run of revisions for what she was
writing. The result was a paper where we had gone over the results and
conclusions so many times that there was nothing left to add, and
nothing that was out of place. The second example occurred because some
of the authors did not want to accept some of the conclusions from the
data for reasons that should not have affected the scientific
conclusions. As a result we had an intensive internal peer review where
the manuscript was revised, and the methods were thoroughly evaluated
with the limitations of the methodology clearly described in the paper.
Wording of the conclusions and discussion were gone over multiple times
to try to satisfy the dissenters. In the end the dissenters asked to be
removed as authors for a paper that was submitted to and accepted
without revisions by PNAS, and became a widely cited paper in the field.

Usually peer review catches things that need to be revised, but for
those two papers we did it ourselves.

Ron Okimoto

[JTEM]

Post by RonO
Peer review has it's flaws, but there is absolutely no doubt that it is
the best means we have for giving research it's first pass evaluation.

It's irredeemably flawed. There needs to be transparency.

The biggest danger, and it does happen, is good science being killed
off by "Peer Review."

How to stop it? Transparency. Let the rejected papers see the light
of day.

Post by RonO
Peer review can be manipulated (Sternberg and Meyer), and groups of
researchers have been exposed for recommending each others papers for
peer review (some journals ask the authors to recommend possible peer
reviewers in their field).

Less concerned about bad science making it through. Science is self
correcting. Science is repeatable or it isn't science. We can
reasonably expect garbage to self correct. But the opposite isn't
true. Good science that is kept from seeing the light of day is a
loss to the world.

[RonO]

Post by JTEM

Post by RonO
Peer review has it's flaws, but there is absolutely no doubt that it
is the best means we have for giving research it's first pass evaluation.

It's irredeemably flawed. There needs to be transparency.
The biggest danger, and it does happen, is good science being killed
off by "Peer Review."

You are just delusional. There are so many journals publishing similar
science that peer review is about the last thing that is going to kill
off good science. The current situation is that there are journals
damaging the integrity of the science by being paper mills, and
publishing junk if the authors are willing to pay them.

Post by JTEM
How to stop it?  Transparency. Let the rejected papers see the light
of day.

When I review a paper, I always check the box that gives the journal the
right to name me as one of the reviewers, and to forward my reviews to
other journals if they think that the paper would be better suited to
those journals, when journals have that policy. My recollection is that
pretty much all journals warn reviewers about reviewing papers where
they have a conflict of interest, and pretty much all of them have the
reviewers claim no conflict.

There really are so many journals at this time, that the suppression
that you claim, just doesn't exist.

Bad junk gets rejected from all legitimate journals.

Post by JTEM

Post by RonO
Peer review can be manipulated (Sternberg and Meyer), and groups of
researchers have been exposed for recommending each others papers for
peer review (some journals ask the authors to recommend possible peer
reviewers in their field).

Less concerned about bad science making it through. Science is self
correcting. Science is repeatable or it isn't science. We can
reasonably expect garbage to self correct. But the opposite isn't
true. Good science that is kept from seeing the light of day is a
loss to the world.

Science is not narrowly focused, and quite dispersed with many journals
publishing similar science. The fact that science is self correcting is
the reason that you don't have to worry about peer review. Things that
aren't worth publishing get published all the time. They just get
buried in the junk pile, and do not get noticed. My guess is that the
rate of rejection is pretty low for most journals. I was an associate
editor for around a decade (off and on) since the 1990's, and have
reviewed papers from a wide range of journals, and not just that one,
and I have only outright rejected 2 papers, all the rest were sent back
for revision, and most were eventually accepted.

Ron Okimoto

[erik simpson]

Post by JTEM

Post by RonO
Peer review has it's flaws, but there is absolutely no doubt that it
is the best means we have for giving research it's first pass evaluation.

It's irredeemably flawed. There needs to be transparency.
The biggest danger, and it does happen, is good science being killed
off by "Peer Review."

You are just delusional.  There are so many journals publishing similar
science that peer review is about the last thing that is going to kill
off good science.  The current situation is that there are journals
damaging the integrity of the science by being paper mills, and
publishing junk if the authors are willing to pay them.

Post by JTEM
How to stop it?  Transparency. Let the rejected papers see the light
of day.

When I review a paper, I always check the box that gives the journal the
right to name me as one of the reviewers, and to forward my reviews to
other journals if they think that the paper would be better suited to
those journals, when journals have that policy.  My recollection is that
pretty much all journals warn reviewers about reviewing papers where
they have a conflict of interest, and pretty much all of them have the
reviewers claim no conflict.
There really are so many journals at this time, that the suppression
that you claim, just doesn't exist.
Bad junk gets rejected from all legitimate journals.

Post by JTEM

Post by RonO
Peer review can be manipulated (Sternberg and Meyer), and groups of
researchers have been exposed for recommending each others papers for
peer review (some journals ask the authors to recommend possible peer
reviewers in their field).

Less concerned about bad science making it through. Science is self
correcting. Science is repeatable or it isn't science. We can
reasonably expect garbage to self correct. But the opposite isn't
true. Good science that is kept from seeing the light of day is a
loss to the world.

Science is not narrowly focused, and quite dispersed with many journals
publishing similar science.  The fact that science is self correcting is
the reason that you don't have to worry about peer review.  Things that
aren't worth publishing get published all the time.  They just get
buried in the junk pile, and do not get noticed.  My guess is that the
rate of rejection is pretty low for most journals.  I was an associate
editor for around a decade (off and on) since the 1990's, and have
reviewed papers from a wide range of journals, and not just that one,
and I have only outright rejected 2 papers, all the rest were sent back
for revision, and most were eventually accepted.
Ron Okimoto

Recall that our troll has no knowledge nor interest in science generally.

[John Harshman]

Post by erik simpson

Post by JTEM

Post by RonO
Peer review has it's flaws, but there is absolutely no doubt that it
is the best means we have for giving research it's first pass evaluation.

It's irredeemably flawed. There needs to be transparency.
The biggest danger, and it does happen, is good science being killed
off by "Peer Review."

You are just delusional.  There are so many journals publishing
similar science that peer review is about the last thing that is going
to kill off good science.  The current situation is that there are
journals damaging the integrity of the science by being paper mills,
and publishing junk if the authors are willing to pay them.

Post by JTEM
How to stop it?  Transparency. Let the rejected papers see the light
of day.

When I review a paper, I always check the box that gives the journal
the right to name me as one of the reviewers, and to forward my
reviews to other journals if they think that the paper would be better
suited to those journals, when journals have that policy.  My
recollection is that pretty much all journals warn reviewers about
reviewing papers where they have a conflict of interest, and pretty
much all of them have the reviewers claim no conflict.
There really are so many journals at this time, that the suppression
that you claim, just doesn't exist.
Bad junk gets rejected from all legitimate journals.

Post by JTEM

Post by RonO
Peer review can be manipulated (Sternberg and Meyer), and groups of
researchers have been exposed for recommending each others papers
for peer review (some journals ask the authors to recommend possible
peer reviewers in their field).

Less concerned about bad science making it through. Science is self
correcting. Science is repeatable or it isn't science. We can
reasonably expect garbage to self correct. But the opposite isn't
true. Good science that is kept from seeing the light of day is a
loss to the world.

Science is not narrowly focused, and quite dispersed with many
journals publishing similar science.  The fact that science is self
correcting is the reason that you don't have to worry about peer
review.  Things that aren't worth publishing get published all the
time.  They just get buried in the junk pile, and do not get noticed.
My guess is that the rate of rejection is pretty low for most
journals.  I was an associate editor for around a decade (off and on)
since the 1990's, and have reviewed papers from a wide range of
journals, and not just that one, and I have only outright rejected 2
papers, all the rest were sent back for revision, and most were
eventually accepted.
Ron Okimoto

Recall that our troll has no knowledge nor interest in science generally.

Yes, I believe this is all about one particular aquatic ape theorist not
being able to publish in a high-impact journal.

[JTEM]

Post by John Harshman
Yes, I believe this is all about one particular aquatic ape theorist

The first example I raised was AIDS and the oral vaccine, this one
I'm raising now is Multi Regionalism.

[RonO]

Post by JTEM

Post by John Harshman
Yes, I believe this is all about one particular aquatic ape theorist

The first example I raised was AIDS and the oral vaccine, this one
I'm raising now is Multi Regionalism.

Multi Regionalism was likely never supported by the molecular data. The
first isozyme and blood group data that started to accumulate after the
1950's indicated that Europeans, Asians and Africans were closely
related and that Native Americans came from Asia. All the DNA data has
just confirmed that. Neanderthals and Denisovans existed in Asia and
Europe for over half a million years as pretty much separate
populations, but they came from Africa, and were replaced by Africans
with very little of their DNA still existing in the extant population.

Crackpot junk just doesn't get published. Just try to interpret the
existing data in a way that supports the multiregional hypothesis.

This is something discussing the issue from 2008 in a prestigious
journal Nature Genetics. At this time we did not have the fossil DNA
evidence. We already had the Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA, but the
paper doesn't state it as evidence for African replacement. They have
something about the isozyme data (Lewontin, 1972). We had other genetic
polymorphisms that were being typed at the time like microsatellites
(short tandem repeats). At this time population sampling was still only
in the hundreds, often much less than a hundred for each "racial" group.

https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/human-evolutionary-tree-417/

We now have fossil DNA sequence of Neanderthals and Denisovans, we can
tell that there was never extensive gene flow between Modern humans and
Neanderthals and Denisovans because we can tell how much of their DNA
still exists in the extant population. We have fossil DNA sequence
indicating that there were multiple interbreeding events, but after the
initial interbreeding event with Neanderthals when modern humans were
leaving Africa less than 80,000 years ago. Subsequent interbreeding
events with Neanderthals seem to have been mostly dead ends leaving no
evidence in the extant population. Modern humans interbred with
Denisovans in South East Asia and Indonesia, and some Indonesian
individuals retain 7% Denisovan DNA.

The mitochondrial DNA data had already indicated that there was not
significant gene flow in terms of reacquiring mitochondrial lineages
through interbreeding with populations that had left Africa before
mitochondrial Eve existed. We have Denisovan and Neanderthal
mitochondrial sequence, and we haven't found any evidence for the
existence of these lineages in any modern human population. You would
have to have genetic mixing at a level not supported by the nuclear DNA
data, and this extensive genetic mixing would have to have avoided
exchange of mitochondrial DNA between existing populations.

We have identified a small amount of DNA in mostly extant Indonesian
genomes that was inherited from Denisovans that are likely ancient bits
of DNA from Homo erectus (May have left Africa half a million years
before the Denisovans) that the Denisovans likely obtained by
interbreeding with the Homo species they met up with in the region, but
it was only a small fraction of the Denisovan genome.

The multiregional hypothesis, option D, Fig. 1 is not supported by the
existing data, nor is option C that is dependent on intermixing of the
regional populations with Africans. It turned out that option B is the
one that is partially correct. Instead of a little DNA exchanged
between each existing population with the invading Africans we first had
an exchange with Neanderthals and then took a small amount of
Neanderthal DNA with us as we expanded into Europe and Asia, and then in
Asia this mixed population interbred with Denisovans that had already
interbred with another Homo population that preceded them in Asia.

The multiregional hypothesis was already coming up short with the data
we had in the 1980's, and the Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA killed it
for good. Peer Review is not keeping the junk from being published,
just reality.

Ron Okimoto

[JTEM]

Post by RonO
Multi Regionalism was likely never supported by the molecular data.

#1. That's a gross misunderstanding & misrepresentation of this so
called "Molecular Data."

Supposedly, absent any strangely beneficial genes you may have, even
with descendants the "Molecular Data" would completely lose you within
a thousand years!

#2. The so called "Molecular Data" is racist. It's far more clear in
Asia than in Europe, for example, where it may be easier to image by
another name: Regional Continuity.

The overly dogmatic types can't accept "Multi Regionalism" but you
can often grasp "Regional Continuity."

Australian aboriginals, for example, remained remarkably consistent
even when their DNA was completely swamped by new arrivals, including
the loss of the LM3 insert or Chromosome 11 insert.

Post by RonO
  The
first isozyme and blood group data that started to accumulate after the
1950's indicated that Europeans, Asians and Africans were closely
related and that Native Americans came from Asia.

You just switched from human ORIGINS to PRESENT DAY human dispersal.

Those are two EXTREMELY DIFFERENT subjects.

[RonO]

Post by RonO
Multi Regionalism was likely never supported by the molecular data.

#1.  That's a gross misunderstanding & misrepresentation of this so
called "Molecular Data
Supposedly, absent any strangely beneficial genes you may have, even
with descendants the "Molecular Data" would completely lose you within
a thousand years!

You didn't read the linked article. You don't seem to realize that the
initial molecular data that is referenced gave rise to the neutral
theory of molecular evolution. The amount of variation could not be
explained by selection. It gave credence to the usefulness of molecular
clocks. Genetic drift is responsible for most of the difference in
genetic diversity between populations.

#2.  The so called "Molecular Data" is racist. It's far more clear in
Asia than in Europe, for example, where it may be easier to image by
another name:  Regional Continuity.
The overly dogmatic types can't accept "Multi Regionalism" but you
can often grasp "Regional Continuity."
Australian aboriginals, for example, remained remarkably consistent
even when their DNA was completely swamped by new arrivals, including
the loss of the LM3 insert or Chromosome 11 insert.

The earlier morphological data was often generated and interpreted by
racists. The molecular data is just what it is in each population
without the past racist interpretations. We have so much data and past
comparisons that we can take samples from across the world and analyze
them blind and determine where those genetics came from. 23 and Me took
my data and identified my ancestry as Japanese, but they also told me
that my genetics derived from around Hiroshima. They knew my name was
Japanese, but they did not know that both sets of my grand parents came
from Hiroshima. My maternal grandparents settled in Canada and my
paternal grandparents settled in California. Due to the Japanese
internment in the US and the ejection of the Japanese from the West
Coast of Canada my parents met in Michigan.

Post by RonO
  The first isozyme and blood group data that started to accumulate
after the 1950's indicated that Europeans, Asians and Africans were
closely related and that Native Americans came from Asia.

You just switched from human ORIGINS to PRESENT DAY human dispersal.
Those are two EXTREMELY DIFFERENT subjects.

There is no data supporting multiregionalism in the extant populations.
That is why the linked to article was proposing how there may have been
multiregional populations, but they would need to have been constantly
mixing among themselves and with the Africans. You should have read the
article before blasting off with your stupidity.

In South East Asia there may have been a Homo erectus population that
interbred with Denisovans, but it wasn't a substantial mixing event.
The Denisovans transferred a bit of this ancient DNA to modern humans
that had already inherited a little Neanderthal DNA as they moved out of
Africa. The multiregional hypothesis is still as dead as it was a
couple decades ago. Denisovans did interbreed with Neanderthal from
time to time, but Neanderthal do not have evidence of the more ancient
(possibly, Homo erectus) DNA in their genome. The current scenario is
that Homo erectus left Africa, subsequently the population that would
become Neanderthals and Denisovans left Africa and started diverging in
Europe and Asia. Denisovans did a little interbreeding with a more
ancient population. Some Africans left Africa around 200,000 years ago
and interbred with Neanderthals. These Africans had a mitochondrial
lineage that existed prior to Mitochondrial Eve. The African population
died out in Europe or was absorbed by the Neanderthal. Their
mitochondrial lineage took over and became fixed in the Neanderthal
population. This is why the Denisovan mitochondrial lineages appears to
have branched off much earlier than the Neanderthal lineage that existed
when African's again left Africa less than 80,000 years ago. These
Africans had a little interbreeding with Neanderthals as they left
Africa, and Neanderthal DNA was established at around 2 to 3% of the
genome of this population before they dispersed into Europe and Asia.
In Europe and West Asia they encountered more Neanderthal, and we have
evidence for more interbreeding events, but these seem to be dead ends
and those families died out and did not become part of the extant
population. In South East Asia modern humans interbred with Denisovans
and some Indonesian individuals have as much as 7% Denisovan DNA. They
also inherited a bit of the more ancient DNA from the Denisovans that
may have come from Homo erectus.

Ron Okimoto

[JTEM]

Post by RonO
You didn't read

This isn't a book club, it's a discussion group, and you have
a lengthy history of splattering "Cites" which do not refute
anything you're opposing nor support a goddamn thing you think
you're saying.

Simple: If you want to pretend that you read and understood
a "Cite," and that it establishes anything relevant, explain
exactly what you think it establishes, and how.

Your "Molecular data" is garbage. It's not addressing human
ORIGINS but human DISPERSAL. These are two entirely different
topics.

[RonO]

Post by JTEM

Post by RonO
You didn't read

This isn't a book club, it's a discussion group, and you have
a lengthy history of splattering "Cites" which do not refute
anything you're opposing nor support a goddamn thing you think
you're saying.
Simple:  If you want to pretend that you read and understood
a "Cite," and that it establishes anything relevant, explain
exactly what you think it establishes, and how.
Your "Molecular data" is garbage. It's not addressing human
ORIGINS but human DISPERSAL. These are two entirely different
topics.

Drool in ignorance forever.

Ron Okimoto

[JTEM]

Post by JTEM
Your "Molecular data" is garbage. It's not addressing human
ORIGINS but human DISPERSAL. These are two entirely different
topics.

[--Drool--]

To quote your worthless, retarded words here:

"The first isozyme and blood group data that started to accumulate after
the 1950's indicated that Europeans, Asians and Africans were closely
related and that Native Americans came from Asia."

They were looking at THE PRESENT populations. So *Not* human origins
but dispersal. The fact that you don't know this is typical, even after
having it pointed out to you. Unfortunately, your doubling down on
your mental retardation even AFTER being called out is also typical.

You're confusing DISPERSAL for ORIGINS.

[JTEM]

Post by John Harshman
Yes, I believe this is all about one particular aquatic ape theorist

The first example I raised was AIDS and the oral vaccine, this one
I'm raising now is Multi Regionalism.

[JTEM]

Post by RonO

Post by JTEM
The biggest danger, and it does happen, is good science being killed
off by "Peer Review."

You are just delusional.

No, you're a fucking idiot. Take a look at the work on AIDS epidemic
being created by a vaccine: Papers/letters "Debunking" it were
published routinely -- though why you'd need to debunk something that
you supposedly already debunked is a mystery. And work that actually
did science and supported the likelihood was squelched. The bad science
was ultimately deposed, and the vaccine origins is still talked about
MAINSTREAM, but much of the good science never saw the light of day.

Post by RonO
There are so many journals publishing similar
science that

Well you're a fucking idiot. People have to be published, if they
want their cushy jobs, so they post innocuous crap that's totally
safe. Yes. So these "Journals" get flooded with shades of gray,
virtually indistinct garbage.

But we're not talking about the idiotic standards of academia, which
is what creates THAT problem. We're talking about the idiocy that is
peer review.

peer review is about the last thing that is going to kill

Post by RonO
off good science.

And yet it has.

It has let through "Cold Fusion" though, hasn't it?

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by RonO

Post by JTEM

Post by RonO
Peer review has it's flaws, but there is absolutely no doubt that it is
the best means we have for giving research it's first pass evaluation.

It's irredeemably flawed. There needs to be transparency.
The biggest danger, and it does happen, is good science being killed
off by "Peer Review."

You are just delusional.

Of course, but you're using it in its correct well established sense.
JTEM is using it in the trashy sense used by junk journals to tell you
that their publcations are peer reviewed.

Post by RonO
There are so many journals publishing similar science that peer
review is about the last thing that is going to kill off good science.
The current situation is that there are journals damaging the integrity
of the science by being paper mills, and publishing junk if the authors
are willing to pay them.

Post by JTEM
How to stop it?  Transparency. Let the rejected papers see the light
of day.

When I review a paper, I always check the box that gives the journal
the right to name me as one of the reviewers, and to forward my reviews
to other journals if they think that the paper would be better suited
to those journals, when journals have that policy. My recollection is
that pretty much all journals warn reviewers about reviewing papers
where they have a conflict of interest, and pretty much all of them
have the reviewers claim no conflict.
There really are so many journals at this time, that the suppression
that you claim, just doesn't exist.
Bad junk gets rejected from all legitimate journals.

Post by JTEM

Post by RonO
Peer review can be manipulated (Sternberg and Meyer), and groups of
researchers have been exposed for recommending each others papers for
peer review (some journals ask the authors to recommend possible peer
reviewers in their field).

Less concerned about bad science making it through. Science is self
correcting. Science is repeatable or it isn't science. We can
reasonably expect garbage to self correct. But the opposite isn't
true. Good science that is kept from seeing the light of day is a
loss to the world.

Science is not narrowly focused, and quite dispersed with many journals
publishing similar science. The fact that science is self correcting
is the reason that you don't have to worry about peer review. Things
that aren't worth publishing get published all the time. They just get
buried in the junk pile, and do not get noticed. My guess is that the
rate of rejection is pretty low for most journals. I was an associate
editor for around a decade (off and on) since the 1990's, and have
reviewed papers from a wide range of journals, and not just that one,
and I have only outright rejected 2 papers, all the rest were sent back
for revision, and most were eventually accepted.
Ron Okimoto

[JTEM]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Of course, but you're using it in its correct well established sense.

You're a religious fundy. Literally.

"As it is written, so shall it be!"

No, you FuckTard, "Peer Review" is a shoddy system that protects the
status quo. Academia requires publishing, status -- JOBS -- depend
on it and "Peer Review" is all about that. It is NOT about blazing
new trails. In fact, that's the surest method of NOT being published!

The demographics, the "vectors" for AIDS and hepatitis were so closely
aligned that before it was even possible to screen for AIDS they
screened for hepatitis and claimed an 80% or better success rate of
stopping AIDS. Well...

Right BEFORE the AIDS crisis, in the mid to late 70s, a hepatitis
vaccine was created specifically for gay men. And that vaccine used
antibodies taken from gay men. THAT vaccine used material from Chimps
to grow it and it is literally impossible for it to not have spread
AIDS. It was impossible for it to NOT have spread AIDS. Because if
AIDS already existed, they took antibodies from people who were
(roughly) 80% likely to be infected, and gave it to sexually active
people who were not. And if AIDS was NOT already present, the fact
that they used simian material to grow it -- the source of SIVS, the
precursor to AIDS -- is what introduced the virus.

Show me any "Peer Review" work that was published within 25 years of
that vaccine, talking about this.

Show me the "Peer Review" work on the African oral vaccine as an
extremely likely (and pretty much impossible to not be) source of
AIDS in the Congo within 30 years of the vaccine program.

I read TONS of junk pieces published in "Peer Reviewed" oh so
scientific journals that supposedly debunked such claims. None of
them so much as addressed what was being said but, you know, they're
only scientists so they were too busy doing science to get it right...

GWOBULL WARBLING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And what gets me, what convinces anyone with a brain just how utterly
devoid of worth you are is that nothing I'm saying is news to you....

Turn back the clock to the Dubya Bush years when people were actually
AVOIDING evolution, trying to stay away from the topic, because their
grant money would dry up and they couldn't get published...

Rent: A Flock of Dodos to discover what you used to know, when it
was politically popular to know it.

Shithead.

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
JTEM is using it in the trashy sense used by junk journals to tell you
that their publcations are peer reviewed.

  There are so many journals publishing similar science that peer
review is about the last thing that is going to kill off good science.
The current situation is that there are journals damaging the
integrity of the science by being paper mills, and publishing junk if
the authors are willing to pay them.

Post by JTEM
How to stop it?  Transparency. Let the rejected papers see the light
of day.

When I review a paper, I always check the box that gives the journal
the right to name me as one of the reviewers, and to forward my
reviews to other journals if they think that the paper would be better
suited to those journals, when journals have that policy.  My
recollection is that pretty much all journals warn reviewers about
reviewing papers where they have a conflict of interest, and pretty
much all of them have the reviewers claim no conflict.
There really are so many journals at this time, that the suppression
that you claim, just doesn't exist.
Bad junk gets rejected from all legitimate journals.

Post by JTEM

Post by RonO
Peer review can be manipulated (Sternberg and Meyer), and groups of
researchers have been exposed for recommending each others papers
for peer review (some journals ask the authors to recommend possible
peer reviewers in their field).

Less concerned about bad science making it through. Science is self
correcting. Science is repeatable or it isn't science. We can
reasonably expect garbage to self correct. But the opposite isn't
true. Good science that is kept from seeing the light of day is a
loss to the world.

Science is not narrowly focused, and quite dispersed with many
journals publishing similar science.  The fact that science is self
correcting is the reason that you don't have to worry about peer
review.  Things that aren't worth publishing get published all the
time.  They just get buried in the junk pile, and do not get noticed.
My guess is that the rate of rejection is pretty low for most
journals.  I was an associate editor for around a decade (off and on)
since the 1990's, and have reviewed papers from a wide range of
journals, and not just that one, and I have only outright rejected 2
papers, all the rest were sent back for revision, and most were
eventually accepted.
Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Post by JTEM

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Of course, but you're using it in its correct well established sense.

You're a religious fundy. Literally.
"As it is written, so shall it be!"
No, you FuckTard, "Peer Review" is a shoddy system that protects the
status quo. Academia requires publishing, status -- JOBS -- depend
on it and "Peer Review" is all about that. It is NOT about blazing
new trails. In fact, that's the surest method of NOT being published!
The demographics, the "vectors" for AIDS and hepatitis were so closely
aligned that before it was even possible to screen for AIDS they
screened for hepatitis and claimed an 80% or better success rate of
stopping AIDS. Well...
Right BEFORE the AIDS crisis, in the mid to late 70s, a hepatitis
vaccine was created specifically for gay men. And that vaccine used
antibodies taken from gay men. THAT vaccine used material from Chimps
to grow it and it is literally impossible for it to not have spread
AIDS. It was impossible for it to NOT have spread AIDS. Because if
AIDS already existed, they took antibodies from people who were
(roughly) 80% likely to be infected, and gave it to sexually active
people who were not. And if AIDS was NOT already present, the fact
that they used simian material to grow it -- the source of SIVS, the
precursor to AIDS -- is what introduced the virus.
Show me any "Peer Review" work that was published within 25 years of
that vaccine, talking about this.
Show me the "Peer Review" work on the African oral vaccine as an
extremely likely (and pretty much impossible to not be) source of
AIDS in the Congo within 30 years of the vaccine program.
I read TONS of junk pieces published in "Peer Reviewed" oh so
scientific journals that supposedly debunked such claims. None of
them so much as addressed what was being said but, you know, they're
only scientists so they were too busy doing science to get it right...

You do realize that you are admitting that the bogus junk that you claim
is being kept out by peer review must be worse than the peer reviewed
bogus junk.

Ron Okimoto

Post by JTEM
GWOBULL WARBLING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And what gets me, what convinces anyone with a brain just how utterly
devoid of worth you are is that nothing I'm saying is news to you....
Turn back the clock to the Dubya Bush years when people were actually
AVOIDING evolution, trying to stay away from the topic, because their
grant money would dry up and they couldn't get published...
Rent:  A Flock of Dodos to discover what you used to know, when it
was politically popular to know it.
Shithead.

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
JTEM is using it in the trashy sense used by junk journals to tell you
that their publcations are peer reviewed.

  There are so many journals publishing similar science that peer
review is about the last thing that is going to kill off good
science. The current situation is that there are journals damaging
the integrity of the science by being paper mills, and publishing
junk if the authors are willing to pay them.

Post by JTEM
How to stop it?  Transparency. Let the rejected papers see the light
of day.

When I review a paper, I always check the box that gives the journal
the right to name me as one of the reviewers, and to forward my
reviews to other journals if they think that the paper would be
better suited to those journals, when journals have that policy.  My
recollection is that pretty much all journals warn reviewers about
reviewing papers where they have a conflict of interest, and pretty
much all of them have the reviewers claim no conflict.
There really are so many journals at this time, that the suppression
that you claim, just doesn't exist.
Bad junk gets rejected from all legitimate journals.

Post by JTEM

Post by RonO
Peer review can be manipulated (Sternberg and Meyer), and groups of
researchers have been exposed for recommending each others papers
for peer review (some journals ask the authors to recommend
possible peer reviewers in their field).

Less concerned about bad science making it through. Science is self
correcting. Science is repeatable or it isn't science. We can
reasonably expect garbage to self correct. But the opposite isn't
true. Good science that is kept from seeing the light of day is a
loss to the world.

Science is not narrowly focused, and quite dispersed with many
journals publishing similar science.  The fact that science is self
correcting is the reason that you don't have to worry about peer
review.  Things that aren't worth publishing get published all the
time.  They just get buried in the junk pile, and do not get noticed.
My guess is that the rate of rejection is pretty low for most
journals.  I was an associate editor for around a decade (off and on)
since the 1990's, and have reviewed papers from a wide range of
journals, and not just that one, and I have only outright rejected 2
papers, all the rest were sent back for revision, and most were
eventually accepted.
Ron Okimoto

[JTEM]

Post by RonO
You do realize that you are admitting that the bogus junk

You're a religious fundy. You call it "Bogus junk" not because
you're capable of naming a damn thing wrong with it, but
because "So it is written and so it shall be!" Some bible oops
I mean "Scientific Journal" told you what to think and you
mistaken this for your thinking.

Go on, continue to delude yourself! I love it. The easiest
way to make me look smart is to post in a group with a
jackass like you.

[RonO]

Post by JTEM

Post by RonO
You do realize that you are admitting that the bogus junk

You're a religious fundy. You call it "Bogus junk" not because
you're capable of naming a damn thing wrong with it, but
because "So it is written and so it shall be!"  Some bible oops
I mean "Scientific Journal" told you what to think and you
mistaken this for your thinking.
Go on, continue to delude yourself! I love it. The easiest
way to make me look smart is to post in a group with a
jackass like you.

This seems to be projection on your part. Who seems to be the religious
fundy in this case?

Ron Okimoto

[JTEM]

Post by RonO
This seems to be projection on your part.

This was three years ago:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.atheism/c/t6El0TKcsjY/m/fbDfyW-8CQAJ

You're defending a headline, pretending that you live this stuff when
it's been around for years already.

Post by RonO
Who seems to be the religiousfundy in this case?

You can't name a single reason for rejecting anything, other than the
fact that some headline never told you to believe it.

You are a religious fundamentalist. You cherry pick your scripture &
believe it is literal truth.

[RonO]

Post by JTEM

Post by RonO
This seems to be projection on your part.

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.atheism/c/t6El0TKcsjY/m/fbDfyW-8CQAJ
You're defending a headline, pretending that you live this stuff when
it's been around for years already.

Post by RonO
Who seems to be the religiousfundy in this case?

You can't name a single reason for rejecting anything, other than the
fact that some headline never told you to believe it.
You are a religious fundamentalist. You cherry pick your scripture &
believe it is literal truth.

Just lost, do you even know what you are arguing about? You snipped out
what you were projecting onto me, and now you seem to be changing the
subject of your rant. You are the one that was anti peer review, and
started in with your stupid junk on the multiregional hypothesis when it
isn't being kept from being published by peer review. As sad as it may
be the fundy seems to be you when you can't even deal with the evidence
that exists. If you had read the linked to paper you would know that
the author was citing the relevant literature, and was doing a
comparison with 4 different models one of which was the possiblility of
multiregional evolution, but he noted that the data was not consistent
with the multiregional hypothesis, so he was trying to modify it in a
way that it would be consistent with the data. One of the alternatives
(B) turns out to be the most consistent with the current data, but he
was trying to support another alternative (with the data then available)
that would involve much more interbreeding between all the regions. As
crazy as it may seem you don't seem to understand that the data that
existed at that time would have required much more interbreeding between
the regions than was acceptable to the multiregional hypothesis as it
existed at that time. You have even gone on about how you would like
more interbreeding between Africans and Neanderthal, and if more
interbreeding had in fact occurred, this guys alternative would have
been supported instead of being rejected by the current data.

Pretending seems to be more projection on your part, by the time that I
retired in May I had already reviewed 4 papers in 2024. I informed the
journals that I was retiring, and that my email address would change. I
did not give them a new email address because I do not want to continue
to review papers. As a working scientist I felt that I was under an
obligation to participate in peer review. Some of the research that I
was involved with was still being published, but most was proprietary.
Since I am no longer actively participating in the scientific endeavor,
I no longer think that I need to contribute to peer review. My last
review was turned in, in May. I haven't received any subsequent
invitations to review papers because my company email was ended with my
retirement.

Ron Okimoto

[JTEM]

Just lost, do you even know what you are arguing about?  You snipped out
what y

You're such a loser!

Luckily you can switch handles and agree with yourself, which you will
do, because nobody in their right mind can be fooled by you...

I gave you three specific examples of Peer Review rejecting sound
science. You suffered a meltdown over the three. Unable to find a
single reason to disagree you still disagreed because your scripture
never told you to agree.

A.I. is polluting the already quite polluted peer review idiocy.

Has been for years.

You can go back even further and find people getting nonsense papers
published, written by A.I....

You've posted nothing new, nothing useful and this is pretty standard
for you.

[RonO]

Post by JTEM

Just lost, do you even know what you are arguing about?  You snipped
out what y

You're such a loser!
Luckily you can switch handles and agree with yourself, which you will
do, because nobody in their right mind can be fooled by you...
I gave you three specific examples of Peer Review rejecting sound
science. You suffered a meltdown over the three. Unable to find a
single reason to disagree you still disagreed because your scripture
never told you to agree.
A.I. is polluting the already quite polluted peer review idiocy.
Has been for years.
You can go back even further and find people getting nonsense papers
published, written by A.I....
You've posted nothing new, nothing useful and this is pretty standard
for you.

This seems to be more projection on your part. You just snip out what
you have done and just stumble on.

Ron Okimoto

[JTEM]

Post by RonO
This seems

You. Could. Not. Raise. A. Single. Objection.

Not one.

Not even after I humiliated you for it.

[RonO]

Post by JTEM

Post by RonO
This seems

You. Could. Not. Raise. A. Single. Objection.
Not one.
Not even after I humiliated you for it.

I already did, but you have just removed the material and kept plodding
on with the same misdirection. Even you can't figure out what you are
responding to in this post let alone the previous posts.

Ron Okimoto

[erik simpson]

Post by RonO

Post by JTEM

Post by RonO
This seems

You. Could. Not. Raise. A. Single. Objection.
Not one.
Not even after I humiliated you for it.

I already did, but you have just removed the material and kept plodding
on with the same misdirection.  Even you can't figure out what you are
responding to in this post let alone the previous posts.
Ron Okimoto

He neither knows nor cares. Ignore the chump.

[JTEM]

Post by erik simpson
He neither

You're so brave, replying to yourself, spewing your emotions,
never doubting 100% agreement... so courageous... truly
remarkable.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 13:36:50 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by RonO

Post by JTEM

Post by RonO
This seems

You. Could. Not. Raise. A. Single. Objection.
Not one.
Not even after I humiliated you for it.

I already did, but you have just removed the material and kept plodding
on with the same misdirection.  Even you can't figure out what you are
responding to in this post let alone the previous posts.
Ron Okimoto

He neither knows nor cares. Ignore the chump.

Careful; ignoring him/her/it means that you're being
"willfully blind".

[erik simpson]

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 13:36:50 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by RonO

Post by JTEM

Post by RonO
This seems

You. Could. Not. Raise. A. Single. Objection.
Not one.
Not even after I humiliated you for it.

I already did, but you have just removed the material and kept plodding
on with the same misdirection.  Even you can't figure out what you are
responding to in this post let alone the previous posts.
Ron Okimoto

He neither knows nor cares. Ignore the chump.

Careful; ignoring him/her/it means that you're being
"willfully blind".

There it is.

[JTEM]

Post by erik simpson
There it is.

Speaking of which: What is the most valuable contribution
you made to this group, using this "erik" alter?

What's the most intelligent thing you've said in a week?

You're a spazz. You're an out of control emotional spazz,
and I find that utterly hilarious!

[jillery]

On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 12:36:56 -0700, erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 13:36:50 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by RonO

Post by JTEM

Post by RonO
This seems

You. Could. Not. Raise. A. Single. Objection.
Not one.
Not even after I humiliated you for it.

I already did, but you have just removed the material and kept plodding
on with the same misdirection.  Even you can't figure out what you are
responding to in this post let alone the previous posts.
Ron Okimoto

He neither knows nor cares. Ignore the chump.

Careful; ignoring him/her/it means that you're being
"willfully blind".

There it is.

That depends on what you mean by "it".

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

[jillery]

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 13:36:50 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by RonO

Post by JTEM

Post by RonO
This seems

You. Could. Not. Raise. A. Single. Objection.
Not one.
Not even after I humiliated you for it.

I already did, but you have just removed the material and kept plodding
on with the same misdirection.  Even you can't figure out what you are
responding to in this post let alone the previous posts.
Ron Okimoto

He neither knows nor cares. Ignore the chump.

Careful; ignoring him/her/it means that you're being
"willfully blind".

How clever, to conflate two entirely separate behaviors just to assert
a stupid manufactured argument, a classic troll tactic. By rude
analogy, ignoring willful stupidity is actively avoiding it, implying
informed recognition; not possible when blinded by killfiles.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

[JTEM]

Post by Bob Casanova
Careful; ignoring

You're a shit head, an infantile shit head who parades their
narcissism with every post.

There. I made it about personalities AND I was accurate...

[JTEM]

Post by RonO

Post by JTEM
You. Could. Not. Raise. A. Single. Objection.

I already did

Liar. Pussy.

[RonO]

Post by JTEM

Post by RonO

Post by JTEM
You. Could. Not. Raise. A. Single. Objection.

I already did

Liar. Pussy.

More projection.

Ron Okimoto

[JTEM]

Post by RonO
More projection.

We'll have to add "Projection" to the already astounding list
of words you don't understand..

[Ernest Major]

Post by RonO
https://phys.org/news/2024-08-junk-ai-scientific-publishing.html
Several examples of scientists using AI to write papers with AI
generated mistakes that passed peer review.  I noted before that ChatGPT
could be used to write the introductions of papers, sometimes, better
than the authors had done.  One example of a figure manipulation
indicates that some authors are using it to present and discuss their
data.  That seems crazy.  ChatGPT doesn't evaluate the junk that it is
given.  It just basically summarizes what they feed into it on some
subject.  I used a graphic AI once.  I asked it to produce a picture of
a chicken walking towards the viewer.  It did a pretty good job, but
gave the chicken the wrong number of toes facing forward.  Apparently
junk like that is making it into science publications.
With these examples it may be that one of the last papers that I
reviewed before retiring earlier this year was due to AI.  It was a good
introduction and cited the relevant papers and summarized what could be
found in them, but even though the authors had cited previous work doing
what they claimed to be doing, their experimental design was incorrect
for what they were trying to do.  The papers they cited had done things
correctly, but they had not.  I rejected the paper and informed the
journal editor that it needed substantial rewrite for the authors to
state what they had actually done.  What might have happened is that the
researchers may have had an AI write their introduction, but it was for
what they wanted to do, and not for what they actually did.  English was
likely not the primary language for the authors, and they may not have
understood the introduction that was written.  If they had understood
the introduction, they would have figured out that they had not done
what they claimed to be doing.  Peer review is going to have to deal
with this type of junk.  The last paper that I reviewed in March came
with instructions that the reviewers were not to use AI to assist them
with the review, but it looks like reviewers are going to need software
that will detect AI generated text.
Ron Okimoto

I can understand why journals would not want to authors to use AI in
writing papers*, but why would they not want reviewers to use AI tools
if they can assist in reviewing the paper?

* Even so, the AI rubric includes translation tools (authors might write
text in their native language, and use AI for a first pass translation
into English), and the spelling/grammar/style checker Grammerly now
includes AI features.

[RonO]

Post by Ernest Major

Post by RonO
https://phys.org/news/2024-08-junk-ai-scientific-publishing.html
Several examples of scientists using AI to write papers with AI
generated mistakes that passed peer review.  I noted before that
ChatGPT could be used to write the introductions of papers, sometimes,
better than the authors had done.  One example of a figure
manipulation indicates that some authors are using it to present and
discuss their data.  That seems crazy.  ChatGPT doesn't evaluate the
junk that it is given.  It just basically summarizes what they feed
into it on some subject.  I used a graphic AI once.  I asked it to
produce a picture of a chicken walking towards the viewer.  It did a
pretty good job, but gave the chicken the wrong number of toes facing
forward.  Apparently junk like that is making it into science
publications.
With these examples it may be that one of the last papers that I
reviewed before retiring earlier this year was due to AI.  It was a
good introduction and cited the relevant papers and summarized what
could be found in them, but even though the authors had cited previous
work doing what they claimed to be doing, their experimental design
was incorrect for what they were trying to do.  The papers they cited
had done things correctly, but they had not.  I rejected the paper and
informed the journal editor that it needed substantial rewrite for the
authors to state what they had actually done.  What might have
happened is that the researchers may have had an AI write their
introduction, but it was for what they wanted to do, and not for what
they actually did.  English was likely not the primary language for
the authors, and they may not have understood the introduction that
was written.  If they had understood the introduction, they would have
figured out that they had not done what they claimed to be doing.
Peer review is going to have to deal with this type of junk.  The last
paper that I reviewed in March came with instructions that the
reviewers were not to use AI to assist them with the review, but it
looks like reviewers are going to need software that will detect AI
generated text.
Ron Okimoto

I can understand why journals would not want to authors to use AI in
writing papers*, but why would they not want reviewers to use AI tools
if they can assist in reviewing the paper?

Apparently you can feed a manuscript into some AI programs and get a
summary evaluation, and the journal did not want reviewers doing that,
It is likely up to the journal to run their own evaluation of the
manuscript with current AI to look for plagarism, and other author
misconduct. At this time AI can't evaluate a manuscript to determine if
the authors did what they claim. It can't seem to evaluate if the
authors are lying or incorrectly evaluated the data. With machine
learning and enough examples I assume that an AI could determine what
the authors are claiming to have done, and if their data is consistent
with their conclusions, but programs like ChatGPT just seems to take
things at face value and doesn't distinguish between lies and incorrect
statements from valid conclusions.

Post by Ernest Major
* Even so, the AI rubric includes translation tools (authors might write
text in their native language, and use AI for a first pass translation
into English), and the spelling/grammar/style checker Grammerly now
includes AI features.

I assume that translation software is totally legitimate, but errors in
translation would have to be picked up by the authors using the software.

What seems to be an issue is that some authors are using AI to present
their data, and some of the results are embarassing wrong or bogus.

Ron Okimoto

[Burkhard]

Post by Ernest Major

Post by RonO
https://phys.org/news/2024-08-junk-ai-scientific-publishing.html
Several examples of scientists using AI to write papers with AI
generated mistakes that passed peer review.  I noted before that ChatGPT
could be used to write the introductions of papers, sometimes, better
than the authors had done.  One example of a figure manipulation
indicates that some authors are using it to present and discuss their
data.  That seems crazy.  ChatGPT doesn't evaluate the junk that it is
given.  It just basically summarizes what they feed into it on some
subject.  I used a graphic AI once.  I asked it to produce a picture of
a chicken walking towards the viewer.  It did a pretty good job, but
gave the chicken the wrong number of toes facing forward.  Apparently
junk like that is making it into science publications.
With these examples it may be that one of the last papers that I
reviewed before retiring earlier this year was due to AI.  It was a good
introduction and cited the relevant papers and summarized what could be
found in them, but even though the authors had cited previous work doing
what they claimed to be doing, their experimental design was incorrect
for what they were trying to do.  The papers they cited had done things
correctly, but they had not.  I rejected the paper and informed the
journal editor that it needed substantial rewrite for the authors to
state what they had actually done.  What might have happened is that the
researchers may have had an AI write their introduction, but it was for
what they wanted to do, and not for what they actually did.  English was
likely not the primary language for the authors, and they may not have
understood the introduction that was written.  If they had understood
the introduction, they would have figured out that they had not done
what they claimed to be doing.  Peer review is going to have to deal
with this type of junk.  The last paper that I reviewed in March came
with instructions that the reviewers were not to use AI to assist them
with the review, but it looks like reviewers are going to need software
that will detect AI generated text.
Ron Okimoto

I can understand why journals would not want to authors to use AI in
writing papers*, but why would they not want reviewers to use AI tools
if they can assist in reviewing the paper?
* Even so, the AI rubric includes translation tools (authors might write
text in their native language, and use AI for a first pass translation
into English), and the spelling/grammar/style checker Grammerly now
includes AI features.

If any of you are in Edinburgh right now, I'm on a panel on
this topic at the International Bookfestival, presenting the outcome
of two research projects we had on this, and some workshops
with publishers.

https://www.edbookfest.co.uk/the-festival/whats-on/page-against-the-machine

I'm on the more relaxed side on this myself, and agree in particular
with
Ernest that nobody worries about some routine tasks like spell-checking
(translation raises some really interesting issues "at the margins" -
Google
e.g got some pushback when publishing in its latest list of languages
also
Romani, without checking with the community, and many are unhappy as
they
considered the "quasi-secret" nature of the language a historical
survival tool)
Very interesting questions also on the copyright for translations etc

For the use by academics, it often depends on the details. GenAI is a
glorified autocomplete tool, keep that in mind and you'll be fine. So
helping
write the review, once you decide on the content, is much less of
an issue than outsourcing the actual analysis eg.

And be aware of hallucinations... as some lawyers found to
their detriment when they submitted files to the court that had made-
up precedents in them

[RonO]

Post by Burkhard

Post by Ernest Major

Post by RonO
https://phys.org/news/2024-08-junk-ai-scientific-publishing.html
Several examples of scientists using AI to write papers with AI
generated mistakes that passed peer review.  I noted before that ChatGPT
could be used to write the introductions of papers, sometimes, better
than the authors had done.  One example of a figure manipulation
indicates that some authors are using it to present and discuss their
data.  That seems crazy.  ChatGPT doesn't evaluate the junk that it is
given.  It just basically summarizes what they feed into it on some
subject.  I used a graphic AI once.  I asked it to produce a picture of
a chicken walking towards the viewer.  It did a pretty good job, but
gave the chicken the wrong number of toes facing forward.  Apparently
junk like that is making it into science publications.
With these examples it may be that one of the last papers that I
reviewed before retiring earlier this year was due to AI.  It was a good
introduction and cited the relevant papers and summarized what could be
found in them, but even though the authors had cited previous work doing
what they claimed to be doing, their experimental design was incorrect
for what they were trying to do.  The papers they cited had done things
correctly, but they had not.  I rejected the paper and informed the
journal editor that it needed substantial rewrite for the authors to
state what they had actually done.  What might have happened is that the
researchers may have had an AI write their introduction, but it was for
what they wanted to do, and not for what they actually did.  English was
likely not the primary language for the authors, and they may not have
understood the introduction that was written.  If they had understood
the introduction, they would have figured out that they had not done
what they claimed to be doing.  Peer review is going to have to deal
with this type of junk.  The last paper that I reviewed in March came
with instructions that the reviewers were not to use AI to assist them
with the review, but it looks like reviewers are going to need software
that will detect AI generated text.
Ron Okimoto

I can understand why journals would not want to authors to use AI in
writing papers*, but why would they not want reviewers to use AI tools
if they can assist in reviewing the paper?
* Even so, the AI rubric includes translation tools (authors might write
text in their native language, and use AI for a first pass translation
into English), and the spelling/grammar/style checker Grammerly now
includes AI features.

If any of you are in Edinburgh right now, I'm on a panel on
this topic at the International Bookfestival, presenting the outcome
of  two research projects we had on this, and some workshops
with publishers.
https://www.edbookfest.co.uk/the-festival/whats-on/page-against-the-machine
I'm on the more relaxed side on this myself, and agree in particular
with
Ernest that nobody worries about some routine tasks like spell-checking
(translation raises some really interesting issues "at the margins" -
Google
e.g got some pushback when publishing in its latest list of languages
also
Romani, without checking with the community, and many are unhappy as
they
considered the "quasi-secret" nature of the language a historical
survival tool)
Very interesting questions also on the copyright for translations etc
For the use by academics, it often depends on the details. GenAI is a
glorified autocomplete tool, keep that in mind and you'll be fine. So
helping
write the review, once you decide on the content, is much less of
an issue than outsourcing the actual analysis eg.
And be aware of hallucinations... as some lawyers found to
their detriment when they submitted files to the court that had made-
up precedents in them

One recent paper that I recall reading indicated that AI halucinations
resulted from feeding the AI, AI generated summaries. The AI started
making things up when it had to deal with AI generated material.

Ron Okimoto

[Ernest Major]

Post by RonO

Post by Burkhard

Post by Ernest Major

Post by RonO
https://phys.org/news/2024-08-junk-ai-scientific-publishing.html
Several examples of scientists using AI to write papers with AI
generated mistakes that passed peer review.  I noted before that ChatGPT
could be used to write the introductions of papers, sometimes, better
than the authors had done.  One example of a figure manipulation
indicates that some authors are using it to present and discuss their
data.  That seems crazy.  ChatGPT doesn't evaluate the junk that it is
given.  It just basically summarizes what they feed into it on some
subject.  I used a graphic AI once.  I asked it to produce a picture of
a chicken walking towards the viewer.  It did a pretty good job, but
gave the chicken the wrong number of toes facing forward.  Apparently
junk like that is making it into science publications.
With these examples it may be that one of the last papers that I
reviewed before retiring earlier this year was due to AI.  It was a good
introduction and cited the relevant papers and summarized what could be
found in them, but even though the authors had cited previous work doing
what they claimed to be doing, their experimental design was incorrect
for what they were trying to do.  The papers they cited had done things
correctly, but they had not.  I rejected the paper and informed the
journal editor that it needed substantial rewrite for the authors to
state what they had actually done.  What might have happened is that the
researchers may have had an AI write their introduction, but it was for
what they wanted to do, and not for what they actually did.  English was
likely not the primary language for the authors, and they may not have
understood the introduction that was written.  If they had understood
the introduction, they would have figured out that they had not done
what they claimed to be doing.  Peer review is going to have to deal
with this type of junk.  The last paper that I reviewed in March came
with instructions that the reviewers were not to use AI to assist them
with the review, but it looks like reviewers are going to need software
that will detect AI generated text.
Ron Okimoto

I can understand why journals would not want to authors to use AI in
writing papers*, but why would they not want reviewers to use AI tools
if they can assist in reviewing the paper?
* Even so, the AI rubric includes translation tools (authors might write
text in their native language, and use AI for a first pass translation
into English), and the spelling/grammar/style checker Grammerly now
includes AI features.

If any of you are in Edinburgh right now, I'm on a panel on
this topic at the International Bookfestival, presenting the outcome
of  two research projects we had on this, and some workshops
with publishers.
https://www.edbookfest.co.uk/the-festival/whats-on/page-against-the-machine
I'm on the more relaxed side on this myself, and agree in particular
with
Ernest that nobody worries about some routine tasks like spell-checking
(translation raises some really interesting issues "at the margins" -
Google
e.g got some pushback when publishing in its latest list of languages
also
Romani, without checking with the community, and many are unhappy as
they
considered the "quasi-secret" nature of the language a historical
survival tool)
Very interesting questions also on the copyright for translations etc
For the use by academics, it often depends on the details. GenAI is a
glorified autocomplete tool, keep that in mind and you'll be fine. So
helping
write the review, once you decide on the content, is much less of
an issue than outsourcing the actual analysis eg.
And be aware of hallucinations... as some lawyers found to
their detriment when they submitted files to the court that had made-
up precedents in them

One recent paper that I recall reading indicated that AI halucinations
resulted from feeding the AI, AI generated summaries.  The AI started
making things up when it had to deal with AI generated material.
Ron Okimoto

From what I've read, using LLM output as training materials for LLMs,
and similar actions, does cause issues, but it's not required for the
generation of AI hallucinations. The training data is already poisoned
by the presence of misinformation, error, sarcasm, satire, parody and
fiction in the training set. Even if you have a clean training set, LLMs
don't understand the limitations of their knowledge, and when they
transgress them they generate hallucinations. (More recently, I have had
Bing CoPilot - I occasionally give it a question, when Google et al are
being particularly obtuse* - tell me that it was unable to answer a
question, so some guardrails have been added.)