Comment

Comment on Scientists reportedly hiding AI text prompts in academic papers to receive positive peer reviews

meme_historian@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨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.

Sort:hotnew top

Mondez@lemdro.id ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
I don’t see this as rotten behaviour at all, I see it as a Bobby tables moment teaching an organisation relying on a technology that they better have a their ducks in a row.

source
- meme_historian@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  It’s still extremely shitty unethical behavior in my book since the negative impact is not felt by the organization that’s failing to validate their inputs, but your peers who are potentially being screwed out of a review process and a spot in journal or conference
  
  source
- Treczoks@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  Absolutely. If they don’t care to actually read the texts, they have to accept the risks of not reading it.
  
  source
- Lemminary@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  Por qué no los dos?
  
  source
  - Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    It’s an XKCD comic.
    
    source
    XeroxCool@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    They didn’t ask what the comic was, they asked “but why not both?”. It can be both unethical and a lesson
    
    source