transcript
Screenshot from Thomas Dietterich on X: “Attention @arxiv authors: Our Code of Conduct states that by signing your name as an author of a paper, each author takes full responsibility for all its contents, irrespective of how the contents were generated.”
With a reply from James Miller: “So this means you expect every author to check every citation and make sure that every citation is real and accurate? What if it’s beyond the ability of one of the authors to verify one of the citations because that citation is in a language he doesn’t know or concerns technical material he doesn’t understand but another author on the paper does?”
You must log in or register to comment.
So this means you expect every author to check every citation and make sure that every citation is real and accurate? What if it’s beyond the ability of one of the authors to verify one of the citations because that citation is in a language he doesn’t know or concerns technical material he doesn’t understand but another author on the paper does?"
Why would you cite a work you hadn’t read and/or don’t understand?
It’s quite common in interdisciplinary papers that some of the authors cover a part of the paper in which they are expert while others cover another part.
It is uncommon in those cases for all authors to read all referenced papers.
I mean in that case then the question is “do i trust my other authors”
Indeed, you should trust the other authors but that is the whole point of the response in the original post.
He is forcing his students to use “AI” to write papers.
Who are you referring to and where do you get that from? Edit: Ok, got it. The response in the original picture is by some weird (possibly delusional) LLM enthisiast as pointed out by Lvxferre.
deleted by creator
We might never reach singularity. I think our universe is a simulation built to study how it happened in base reality - or what kinds of singularities aliens build. The event itself is probably too expensive to render. Our universe will cut to black.
I feel a little bad dunking on a random guy, but this is very stupid
It is always morally correct to dunk on AI boosters
deleted by creator
Wish I could Wayback his profile and see when he had the Rick and Morty PFP
When someone proposes, implements or enforces a clearly sensible rule, and someone else brings weird corner case scenarios up, always ask yourself if there’s a conflict of interests.
I can’t tell if I started doing this more as disinformation became more prevalent over the recent years or it’s something I’ve always done; I don’t know where I would’ve picked it up from.
Nevertheless, you’re spot on; it’s an incredibly good rule-of-thumb.
(I just realized it might’ve been funny if I’d responded to this with a weird, corner-case scenario, instead; but it’s late and I can’t think of a good one for it)
deleted by creator
Don’t tell that guy about free translation tools. Or about trusting your colleagues.
Or, like, not citing what you don’t understand
I’m a strong advocate for trusting your colleagues (and verifying). No disagreement here.
You should know, however, that free translation tools are AI. It’s emphatically exactly the same technology that gave us slop cannons in the first place. The birth of the transformer architecture came from trying to do improvements in machine translation.
That might be too tangential or pedantic, given I think we share the sentiment about this dude, but it feels worth mentioning.
What a fucking imbecile LOL
Yes and fucking get to work
If you can’t check all your sources and/or can’t trust your co-authors, maybe science just isn’t for you?
why cite anything you havent/cant read and/or havent understood?
Amazing to watch the foss owners fight to retain control of the code by turning down essentially free labor adding features and fixes to their project. And here too.
Wrong thread?
Relating the two.
