this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2025
1576 points (99.7% liked)

Science Memes

14039 readers
1469 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 293 points 1 week ago (1 children)

When I was in grad school I mentioned to the department chair that I frequently saw a mis-citation for an important paper in the field. He laughed and said he was responsible for it. He made an error in the 1980s and people copied his citation from the bibliography. He said it was a good guide to people who cited papers without reading them.

[–] [email protected] 66 points 1 week ago (2 children)

At university, I faked a paper on economics (not actually my branch of study, but easily to fake) and put it on the shelf in their library. It was filled with nonsense formulas that, if one took the time and actually solved the equations properly, would all produce the same number as a result: 19920401 (year of publication, April Fools Day). I actually got two requests from people who wanted to use my paper as a basis for their thesis.

[–] [email protected] 47 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Congratulations! You are now a practicing economist. This is exactly how that field works.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 147 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Another basic demonstration on why oversight by a human brain is necessary.

A system rooted in pattern recognition that cannot recognize the basic two column format of published and printed research papers

[–] [email protected] 59 points 1 week ago (3 children)

To be fair the human brain is a pattern recognition system. it’s just the AI developed thus far is shit

[–] [email protected] 51 points 1 week ago (29 children)

Give it a few billion years.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 week ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (28 replies)
[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The human brain has a pattern recognition system. It is not just a pattern recognition system.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The LLM systems are pattern recognition without any logic or awareness is the issue. It's pure pattern recognition, so it can easily find some patterns that aren't desired.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 121 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Guys, can we please call it LLM and not a vague advertising term that changes its meaning on a whim?

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 week ago (3 children)

For some weird reason, I don't see AI amp modelling being advertised despite neural amp modellers exist. However, the very technology that was supposed to replace the guitarists (Suno, etc) are marketed as AI.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 91 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Scientists who write their papers with an LLM should get a lifetime ban from publishing papers.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

BuT tHE HuMAn BrAin Is A cOmpUteEr.

Edit: people who say this are vegetative lifeforms.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 week ago

Vegetative electron microscopes!

[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (13 children)

I played around with ChatGTP to see if it could actually improve my writing. (I've been writing for decades.)

I was immediately impressed by how "personable" the things are and able to interpret your writing and it's able to detect subtle things you are trying to convey, so that part was interesting. I also was impressed by how good it is at improving grammar and helping "join" passages, themes and plot-points, it has advantages that it can see the entire writing piece simultaneously and can make broad edits to the story-flow and that could potentially save a writers days or weeks of re-writing.

Now that the good is out of the way, I also tried to see how well it could just write. Using my prompts and writing style, scenes that I arranged for it to describe. And I can safely say that we have created the ultimate "Averaging Machine."

By definition LLM's are designed to always find the most probable answers to queries, so this makes sense. It has consumed and distilled vast sums of human knowledge and writing but doesn't use that material to synthesize or find inspiration, or what humans do which is take existing ideas and build upon them. No, what it does is always finds the most average path. And as a result, the writing is supremely average. It's so plain and unexciting to read it's actually impressive.

All of this is fine, it's still something new we didn't have a few years ago, neat, right? Well my worry is that as more and more people use this, more and more people are going to be exposed to this "averaging" tool and it will influence their writing, and we are going to see a whole generation of writers who write the most cardboard, stilted, generic works we've ever seen.

And I am saying this from experience. I was there when people started first using the internet to roleplay, making characters and scenes and free-form writing as groups. It was wildly fun, but most of the people involved were not writers, but many discovered literation for the first time there, it's what led to a sharp increase in book-reading and suddenly there were giant bookstores like Barns & Noble popping up on every corner. They were kids just doing their best, but that charming, terrible narration became a social standard. It's why there are so many atrocious dialogue scenes in shows and movies lately, I can draw a straight line to where kids learned to write in the 90's. And what's coming next is going to harm human creativity and inspiration in ways I can't even predict.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 week ago

It immediately demonstrates a lack of both care and understanding of the scientific process.

[–] [email protected] 71 points 1 week ago (4 children)

I recently reviewed a paper, for a prestigious journal. Paper was clearly from the academic mill. It was horrible. They had a small experimental engine, and they wrote 10 papers about it. Results were all normalized and relative, key test conditions not even mentioned, all described in general terms.. and I couldn't even be sure if the authors were real (korean authors, names are all Park, Kim and Lee). I hate where we arrived in scientific publishing.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

To be fair, scientific publishing has been terrible for years, a deeply flawed system at multiple levels. Maybe this is the push it needs to reevaluate itself into something better.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And to be even fairer, scientific reviewing hasn't been better. Back in my PhD days, I got a paper rejected from a prestigious conference for being too simple and too complex from two different reviewers. The reviewer that argue "too simple" also gave a an example of a task that couldn't be achieved which was clearly achievable.

Goes without saying, I'm not in academia anymore.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 week ago (12 children)

People shit on Hossenfelder but she has a point. Academia partially brought this on themselves.

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 56 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

It is worthwhile to note that the enzyme did not attack Norris of Leeds university, that would be tragic.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It is by no spores and examined!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 55 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Wait how did this lead to 20 papers containing the term? Did all 20 have these two words line up this way? Or something else?

[–] [email protected] 167 points 1 week ago (1 children)

AI consumed the original paper, interpreted it as a single combined term, and regurgitated it for researchers too lazy to write their own papers.

[–] [email protected] 173 points 1 week ago (9 children)

Hot take: this behavior should get you blacklisted from contributing to any peer-reviewed journal for life. That's repugnant.

[–] [email protected] 80 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I don't think it's even a hot take

[–] [email protected] 48 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's a hot take, but it's also objectively the correct opinion

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 week ago

Unfortunately, the former is rather what should be the case, although so many times it is not:-(.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah, this is a hot take: I think it’s totally fine if researchers who have done their studies and collected their data want to use AI as a language tool to bolster their paper. Some researchers legitimately have a hard time communicating, or English is a second language, and would benefit from a pass through AI enhancement, or as a translation tool if they’re more comfortable writing in their native language. However, I am not in favor of submitting it without review of every single word, or using it to synthesize new concepts / farm citations. That’s not research because anybody can do it.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It is also a somehow hot take because it kinda puts the burden of systemic misconfiguration on individuals shoulders (oh hey we've seen this before, after and all the time, hashtag (neo)liberalism).

I agree people who did that fucked up. But having your existence as an academic, your job, maybe the only thing you're good at rely on publishing a ton of papers no matter what should be taken into account.

This is a huge problem for science not just since LLM's.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 51 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The peer review process should have caught this, so I would assume these scientific articles aren't published in any worthwhile journals.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 week ago

One of them was in Springer Nature’s Environmental Science and Pollution Research, but it has since been retracted.

The other journals seem less impactful (I cannot truly judge the merit of journals spanning several research fields)

[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 week ago
[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 week ago

The most disappointing timeline.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I think you can use vegetative electron microscopy to detect the quantic social engineering of diatomic algae.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago

My lab doesn't have a retro encabulator for that yet, unfortunately. 😮‍💨

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 week ago

It is by no spores either

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I thought vegetative electron microscopy was one of the most important procedures in the development of the Rockwell retro encabulator?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 week ago (6 children)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago

Thank you for highlighting the important part 🙏

load more comments
view more: next ›