this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2026
929 points (99.0% liked)

Science Memes

19845 readers
4581 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] magnue@lemmy.world 27 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Wouldn't humans do the same thing if someone literally writes lies on the internet?

[–] Kacarott@aussie.zone 31 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

If it were convincing lies made to deceive, then sure. But in this case the papers were deliberately made to be immediately obviously fake, to anyone actually reading them.

So I guess the question would be "would humans do the same thing if someone literally writes obvious jokes on the internet?"

[–] HylicManoeuvre@mander.xyz 12 points 1 day ago

More shockingly, three Indian researchers published a research paper that cited the preprint on the fake disease in Cureus, a peer-reviewed journal published by Springer. It was subsequently retracted.

lol

[–] Honytawk@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 21 hours ago

Looks at Flat-Earthers

Yes they would

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 3 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bohannon#Intentionally_misleading_chocolate_study

Yes, people would exactly do the same, because nobody reads anything but the headline of a paper. Even journalists don't.

AI didn't invent the problem, but it put the problem on steroids.

[–] ExperiencedWinter@lemmy.world 3 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (2 children)

Even journalists don't

Not sure what point your making here, I wouldn't expect most journalists to be great at reading the details of papers like this...

[–] Test_Tickles@lemmy.world 5 points 19 hours ago

Research and fact checking is what separates journalists from hacks.
"Journalist" implies factual information, not science fiction. If someone writes a "news" story about the magic land of Xanth because they can't tell the difference between a Piers Anthony novel and a scientific study it's not Piers Anthony's fault for being too "tricky".

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 3 points 19 hours ago

Vetting sources is the one thing we need journalists for. If they don't vet their sources, their work is without merit.

Reading at least the methodology section of a paper and googling if the researchers and the institute exists, is the bare minimum of what a decent journalist should do.

If they can't do that, then there's no advantage of a journalist over some random person posting on Facebook. Even Youtubers usually vet their sources better.

[–] Napster153@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

That's how we ended up with modern day anti-vaxxers but at least with humans you can strangle the dude responsible. LLMs function like modern idols that the makers use to get away with.

[–] Foofighter@discuss.tchncs.de 17 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Absolutely! Once false information is out there it can't be retracted even if the article itself is retracted. Bumblebees can't fly and vaccines cause autism are good examples of that. The only difference i can imagine is that LLMs have a much larger reach and may spread shit faster

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 7 points 21 hours ago

But the Lancet did not retract the Wakefield paper for 12 years. The Lancet should have been shut down for that.

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 points 20 hours ago

This. Here's a comparable case where human journalists did exactly what LLMs are doing now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bohannon#Intentionally_misleading_chocolate_study

The difference is the scale.