How ChatGPT and other AI tools could disrupt scientific publishing
(www.nature.com)
from EdenRester@kbin.social to technology@lemmy.world on 11 Oct 2023 10:02
https://kbin.social/m/technology@lemmy.world/t/530736
from EdenRester@kbin.social to technology@lemmy.world on 11 Oct 2023 10:02
https://kbin.social/m/technology@lemmy.world/t/530736
A world of AI-assisted writing and reviewing might transform the nature of the scientific paper.
threaded - newest
Anytime a tech bro uses the word disrupt I think they are either completely full of shit or actively trying to destroy society as we know it.
Here’s the thing: it’s usually both!
Oh, I have this idea for a social media platform called Hate Furnace. The whole point is to disrupt the social media landscape by maximizing revenue, privacy violations, corrosive atmosphere and abrasive relationships. Instead of making friends, you make enemies in the Hate Furnace. Instead of following someone, you stalk them.
Hate Furnace - Watch the world burn!
They’re just thinking about the potential pile of VC money it represents.
Finally… Scientific publishing really needs a dramatic change. It is an awful, corrupted mess (source: I have written papers published in high impact factor journals)
+1, same source.
It’s terrible but AI tools can only make it worse.
Worse than now? Is it even possible?
I am an optimistic, let’s see in few years and finger crossed
The main probably with scientific publishing is that our threshold for statistical significance is way too low.
If we allow the threshold to sit at a 1 percent chance that results of the study were random chance, it means that 1 percent of all publications at that level of certainly are going o mislead the public if the media reports on them. And with the volume of research published every day, that adds up to a LOT of misinformation.
It’s not even bad science, it’s bad reporting and widespread scientific illiteracy. But neither of those are going away.
Deleted comment
That might largely be a rephrasing of the same problem.
That’s the exact problem OP is referring to.
Also certain fields (cough cough medicine) needs to consider more than just the p value. With any large sample size you’re almost guaranteed to find a “significant” result in some test, but the effect sizes are often so tiny to be basically meaningless.
Problem of science is corrupted funding, toxic environment, mafia-like organizations and practices, exploitation, widespread corruption.
The current amount of bad science is due only to that. Even before reaching mainstream media, of which I don’t care. Unmanageable excess of meaningless published work is just a side effect of all above. Clearly it cannot change from inside, as current system selects only those who agree or compromise.
A revolution must come from outside. Tools and platforms like arxiv, github, hugging face are already demonstrating that alternative way of working exists, better ways to spread science and facilitate collaboration, increasing quality. Unfortunately they do not currently represent a real alternative outside niche fields, were quality, reproducibility and speed of evolution are critical. But also alternative tools such these can alleviate a minimal part of the huge problems.
I am honestly curious too see how “scientific” system will evolve, because it will. Because as it is now it is doomed to miserably continue falling down even further…