Anyone else plan to publish chatgpt-generated textbooks to springer? Literal AI gold mine.

>govindakumar
Yeah

>>16720379
What's wrong with the name Govindakumar Madhavan?

>>16720371 (OP)
/biz/-coded

>Course inside
What does this mean?

>>16720379
yup

(((AI))) (Artificial Satantelligence) is technology that channels demons to write captivating messages to deceive lions of Christ. Read the book of Revelation.

>>16720371 (OP)
I'd rather kill myself.

>>16720997
Is this AI?

>>16720997
>EY AYE IS DEEMONNZ!
I'M SO FUCKING TIRED OF SCHIZOS LIKE YOU. shut the FUCK UP.

>>16720371 (OP)
Oh no...
Anyway, let's go and read papers which affirm their claims by citing a selected and totally not biased list of sources of questionable quality.

Please forget that the lead author took money from Silicon valley and pharmaceutical companies. The paper is totally not compromised.

>>16720371 (OP)
>Literal AI gold mine
AI detectors are advancing already and hopefully will keep the pace with text generators. I believe publishing AI slop soon won't be as easy as some people may imagine, and if you manage to do it and get caught later your career may be destroyed.

>>16720997
That is fucking SICK. Brb, going to up my ChatGPT subscription. Ave Satanas.

>>16721056
questionable quality still trumps made-up.

>>16720371 (OP)
Is this even real? Why nothing about it on reddit and HN?

>>16720371 (OP)
we're still in wild west times where the negative consequences of AI-generated work are starting to vanish. the west is finally capitulating to jeet infestation mentality. if you don't capitalize now you'll forever be behind.

>>16721905
https://retractionwatch.com/2025/06/30/springer-nature-book-on-machine-learning-is-full-of-made-up-citations/
>Why nothing about it on reddit and HN?
I don't know what HN is, but I guess nobody posted it on reddit or if it was it didn't gain enough traction.

>>16721928
It's weird this is not a bigger deal. Is Springer not a respected name any more?

>>16721905
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44507061

>>16721983
Springer is still one of the leading publishers obviously, but it has lost some of its respect I would say. Springer has a lot of series now and there is some variability in standards/quality between them.

But I agree, this should be a bigger deal. Standards pertain to writing quality and the treatment of topics IMO, not hallucinated LLM sources. Any self respecting publishing house should catch these things.

>>16720371 (OP)
You can trust the author's expertise in machine learning because he extensively uses machine learning for his own work

>>16720371 (OP)
>Literal AI gold mine.
>Literal

A metaphorical gold mine would produce something of value in exchange for money, but what you're implying to do is shit out a stinky turd and pawn it off as gold, hoping nobody is smart enough to tell the difference. While taking advantage of the fact that the what you're selling is marketed directly to those who are not smart enough to tell the difference but are seeking to make themselves smarter. Just a few iterations of this behavior and AI (along with your help) will have successfully poisoned the cumulative knowledge of mankind. Congrats on destroying your own species greatest work. At the very least, AI in it's current state will set humanity back atleast one generation. Keep going and it'll be The Dark Ages 2.0

>>16720379
>>16720388
Saar, do not repeat that name, three of my chickens died and my sister is pregnant.

>>16721983
springer nature is compromised and full of paper mills. it's taken a massive reputation hit in the last several years and they don't seem to care

>>16720371 (OP)
>Govindakumar Madhavan
>machine learning
>bullshits everywhere
well, yes. This is expected. There is a reason they write 99.9% of ML articles and produce 99.9% of YT videos on ML but write 0.001% of ML papers.

No news reported this. No discussions on social media. The whole thing is super shady. It’s a cover-up.

>>16720371 (OP)
>we checked 18 of the 46 citations
How hard is it to check all of them?

>>16720371 (OP)
Not all saars, but always a saar.

>>16725490
Or nobody called attention to it or maybe they did and it didn't gain traction. Why would it automatically be a cover-up? There are remarkable things happening all the time that don't make it into the news cycle or don't generate discussion online.