how does shit like this get published?

>>16713067 (OP)
Will this research finally allow me to enlarge my penis

shitty journals don't get peer reviewed. they just take the money and click print.

>>16713067 (OP)
What am I looking at?

>>16713091
big dick is back in town

>>16713091
AI trying to do the work of humans, as it was made to, that is laughably and obviously wrong.

AI will get better at convincing us it's correct, but not better at being more truthful. Just better at lying to us. It doesn't have traditional human morals so it doesn't care if what it says are lies. It only cares that it tells a convincing enough lie.

>>16713067 (OP)
I look like this.

>>16713067 (OP)
>Authored by three Chinese
>Edited by an Indian
>Reviewed by two Indians
>Published in a predatory journal
HOW COULD THIS HAVE HAPPENED!?

>>16713091
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/fcell-11-1339390-1.pdf

>>16713211

>>16713211
>>16713213

>>16713211
>>16713213
>>16713214
Sciencites deserve this.
You cannot hold to blank-slatism at the same time as Darwinism.
Other ethnicities do not share your values of "honesty" or "integrity."
They also do not share your belief in blank-slatism lol.
Even within your own ethnicity, Darwinistic factors shape certain individuals into being untrustworthy and unable to conduct true science.

>>16713215
deserve what? to ignore low quality papers and journals?

>>16713243
They deserve their religion (sciencism) and society built on said religion to collapse. To make way for something more fit to survive.

>>16713211

>Liang Dong

Must be some joke name. Well at least the rat is correctly labeled ...

>>16713166
most of the good papers are authored by chinese and indians too.
you're lazier than the peer reviewers that waved the ai rat cock through.
a government recently dumped half a trillion bucks into ai shit, and it wasn't the chinks or jeets.
america will become world leader in fake rat cock papers and ai generated antivaxx shit that gets retracted less than half a year of publication, but until then you see it in every news outlet.

>>16713211
At least it labeled the rat correctly.

>>16713091
This is the future of Science. AI will soon make so-called scientists obsolete.

>>16713350
Getting some real Indian vibes from this post. Let me try to communicate in your native tongue:
Resprouization of regisor protemns prom arcems jikma hatee. Regattes jlea poonigger dimimeriom.

>>16713381
i'm european, we still make non-ai papers and didn't pass a bill today making any ai legislation illegal.
china and india are manufacturing giants, they still need real papers to sustain their economic output.
there is a lot of cheating and bullshitting coming from india and china though. and the burgers have decided they want their academia to look like that as well.
don't worry, if you're worth saving, we might paperclip you out of that hellhole before they send you to el salvador for being able to read.

>>16713382
Most fraudulent papers are just a reflection of poorly designed metric-focused hiring practices. My experience in academia in the US is that fewer, higher-impact papers will do a lot more for your career than a steady stream of low-impact papers, so I don't anticipate fake AI papers being a particularly potent threat here.

>>16713402
i'd expect the ai generated papers would either be used by midwits to get a degree at all, and mostly not by those interested in staying in academia afterwards.
you're right that it would fuck your h-index if you shat out lots of papers nobody references, but someone getting a degree so they can get a job as an engineer or whatever wouldn't care about that, or only as much as they have to.

but who knows, maybe someone will figure out how to generate a paper that deceives peer review and baits a lot of citations.
then everyone would be kinda fucked.
no indian can put as much shit on paper as a well-configured ai, and not just because they prefer bottles of water.

>>16713402
i'd expect the ai generated papers would be used by midwits to get a degree at all, and mostly not by those interested in staying in academia afterwards.
you're right that it would fuck your h-index if you shat out lots of papers nobody references, but someone getting a degree so they can get a job as an engineer or whatever wouldn't care about that, or only as much as they have to.

but who knows, maybe someone will figure out how to generate a paper that deceives peer review and baits a lot of citations.
then everyone would be kinda fucked.
no indian can put as much shit on paper as a well-configured ai, and not just because they prefer bottles of water.

>>16713414
Tbf most PhD work is useless in the first place. I could see citation spoofing becoming ubiquitous. For instance, using certain words or phrases that make it to where other AI will preferentially cite it to artificially inflate citation numbers in shitty journals. The other option is that it just starts putting out passable research, which is arguably not a problem at all. I think the more potent threat is everyone outsourcing their thinking to LLM's and becoming functionally retarded, academia being a long-term casualty of mushy brained zoomers and gen alphas aging into the prime working age demographic.

but professor dave says i should trust le science

>>16713077
rodents only

>>16713887
most professors are liars with tenures

>>16713350
>most of the good papers are authored by chinese and indians too.
lol if you actually believe this. the entire western world has started using chinese and indian names in the byline as shorthand for garbage papers

>>16713091
According to the labels, it is a rat with dissliced testtomcels.

>>16713402
>My experience in academia in the US is that fewer, higher-impact papers will do a lot more for your career than a steady stream of low-impact papers
this

>>16713067 (OP)
Academic fraud needs to be a federal crime if academia is to be saved.

>>16713106
AI doesn't "care" about anything or have any comprehension of its actions b/c it's just a predictive model

>>16713352
Thank goodness... otherwise I might never have been able to figure out that that rat was a rat.

>>16715010
So it's human?

>>16714375
But professor dave isn't a professor. Does that mean I can trust him?