this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2024
318 points (97.0% liked)

Technology

59589 readers
3148 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
318
Study featuring AI-generated giant rat penis retracted entirely, journal apologizes (www.vice.com)
submitted 9 months ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
50 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Study featuring AI-generated giant rat penis retracted entirely, journal apologizes::A peer-reviewed study featured nonsensical AI images including a giant rat penis in the latest example of how generative AI has seeped into academia.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] drislands@lemmy.world 35 points 9 months ago (3 children)

A few things came together for me here.

The paper had two reviewers, one in India and one based in the U.S.

.

"...a reviewer of the paper had raised concerns about the AI-generated images that were ignored."

.

...the U.S.-based reviewer who said that they evaluated the study based solely on its scientific merits and that it was up to Frontiers whether or not to publish the AI-generated images...

.

"The authors failed to respond to these requests. We are investigating how our processes failed to act on the lack of author compliance... "

They don't outright say it in the article, but it looks like the reviewer based in India was the one who actually raised concerns about the garbage images. The authors were supposed to respond, but didn't, and the journal published anyway.

I will readily admit that this is just my own conclusion here, but -- I wonder if there was an element of racism that went into ignoring the reviewer's concerns?

[–] asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world 15 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Why do you bring up race? Is there anything that would imply that?

People are lazy and incompetent as fuck, and it's been an industry wide problem that publishing companies in general have lower and lower standards of quality.

[–] drislands@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago

I brought it up purely as speculation, as one possible explanation for why the process was not properly followed. I don't have any experience with publishing companies, whether for science journals or otherwise.

[–] Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com -5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

He didn’t bring up race, he brought up location. Like, you’re the one that brought up race? If it was one American reviewer and one Australian reviewer and this poster said “the Austrian caught it”, would you have made the same comment you just did?

What if the “reviewer based in India” is white?

Edit: I am a ijit, I actually agree with you, and my “what if person based in india is white” should be directed at the guy you’re replying to.

[–] Silentiea@lemm.ee 12 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

He literally said

I wonder if there was an element of racism that went into ignoring the reviewer's concerns?

So...

[–] Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I retract my statement, as I cannot read.

[–] Silentiea@lemm.ee 6 points 9 months ago

Happens to all of us from time to time.

[–] MirthfulAlembic@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago

Check out their controversies section on Wikipedia. This doesn't seem out of character for this publication. It's more likely incompetence than malice.