ArXiv announces a ban on AI content and the responses are hilarious.

[sassinake@mastodon.social]

@clew @FediThing @docpop

or analysis. Or reading. Or brains.

[mjc0961@mastodon.social]

@csilverman Incredibly rare Community Notes W

[happycrow13@mastodon.social]

@docpop Local idiot shocked to learn you should understand the subject you're telling other people about

[mrak@solarsystem.social]

@docpop You expect to get a reasonable response to post on X ???

[gustodon@mas.to]

@docpop James Miller took apart his Rubik's Cube to solve it.

[jackeric@beige.party]

@FediThing @docpop the chap's a PhD

[marta@corteximplant.com]

@docpop well physics papers can have like 50 authors, there is no expectation for all of them to read all of the sources, please

I don't always read sources added by my peers if I don't need to.

I'm in no way pro-"AI", however you're misrepresenting the point raised...

[levzadov@kolektiva.social]

@docpop

https://archive.ph/HHPGh

[a_cubed@mastodon.social]

@docpop @EthicalProfessor
They're not egen demanding thauch. Thye just require that authors check the citations are to actual papers, mot just imagined plausible-looking lists.

[jamesmarshall@sfba.social]

@docpop from his profile, Miller has a PhD from U. Chicago, a JD from Stanford, and is a professor at Smith College. I think this reflects badly on every one of those.

He and his defenders are basically saying "everyone does it, and you're naive to complain." If it's true that everyone does it, that reflects badly on modern academia as a whole.

[marta@corteximplant.com]

@docpop to add, broken trust from your colleagues has been a problem before AI too, here's a particularly popular story https://laskowskilab.faculty.ucdavis.edu/2020/01/29/retractions/