The Briefing Room
General Category => Science, Technology and Knowledge => Topic started by: rangerrebew on February 20, 2024, 02:23:26 pm
-
Peer review expert journal accidentally publishes fake AI image with gibberish and giant gonads on a rat
By Jo Nova
This paper shows exactly how good “Peer Review” is
It’s not just that a clever AI image slipped through peer review, it’s that it was garishly fake in a supersize kind of way. Scientifically everything about it was radioactive satire and yet it still got through “peer review”. The words are gibberish. The editors didn’t even run a spell checker on it before publishing it, let alone the gaze of a single trained biologist in the field.
The paper has been retracted thanks to the real peer review which happened on social media. This was a case of X (formerly Twitter) saves the day. Where normal peer review can take up to two years (if you are an unpopular skeptic) it was only three days from the X review to retraction.
The Telegraph sums it up:
A scientific paper purporting to show the signalling pathway of sperm stem cells has met with widespread ridicule after it depicted a rodent with an anatomically eye-watering appendage and four giant testicles.
The creature, labelled “rat”, was also sitting upright in the manner of a squirrel, while the graphic was littered with nonsensical words such as “dissilced”, “testtomcels” and “senctolic”.
https://joannenova.com.au/2024/02/peer-review-expert-journal-accidentally-publishes-fake-ai-image-of-giant-rat-penis/
-
This paper shows exactly how good “Peer Review” is
-
////00000////
It depends on who the "peers" are ...
(https://media1.tenor.com/m/gUjCFxJhZ6YAAAAC/three-stooges.gif)
-
Looks to be from the 'If you can't bedazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullsh*t' school.
It's all fun until someone loses a grant...
In the vein: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac7G7xOG2Ag (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac7G7xOG2Ag)