The lede is buried deep in this one. Yeah, these dumb LLMs got bad training data that persists to this day, but more concerning is the fact that some scientists are relying upon LLMs to write their papers. This is literally the way scientists communicate their findings to other scientists, lawmakers, and the public, and they’re using fucking predictive text like it has cognition and knows anything.
Sure, most (all?) of those papers got retracted, but those are just the ones that got caught. How many more are lurking out there with garbage claims fabricated by a chatbot?
Thankfully, science will inevitably sus those papers out eventually, as it always does, but it’s shameful that any scientist would be so fatuous to put out a paper written by a dumb bot. You’re the experts. Write your own goddamn papers.
crystalmerchant@lemmy.world 4 days ago
The phrase is “vegetative electron microscopy”
catloaf@lemm.ee 4 days ago
And it looks more like a machine translation error than anything else. Per the article, there was a dataset with two instances of the phrase being created from bad OCR. Then, more recently, somehow the bad phrase got associated with a typo: in Farsi, the words “scanning” and “vegetative” are extremely similar. Thus, when some Iranian authors wanted to translate their paper to English, they used an LLM, and it decided that since “vegetative electron microscope” was apparently a valid term (since it was included in its training data), that’s what they meant.
It’s not that the entire papers were being invented from nothing by Chatgpt.
wewbull@feddit.uk 3 days ago
Yes it is. The papers are the product of an LLM. Even if the user only thought it was translating, the translation hasn’t been reviewed and has errors. The causal link between what goes in to an LLM and what comes out is not certain, so if nobody is checking the output it could just be a technical sounding lorem ipsum generator.
criitz@reddthat.com 3 days ago
It’s been found in many papers though. Do they all have such excuses?