Scientists aghast at bizarre AI rat with huge genitals in peer-reviewed article
It's unclear how such egregiously bad images made it through peer-review.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/02/scientists-aghast-at-bizarre-ai-rat-with-huge-genitals-in-peer-reviewed-article/Open linkView original on kbin.social131
Comments12
The paper is full of other crappy AI images too, a hot mess.
And so are 90% of statistics
37.645% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Nice made up stat. For anyone upvoting this, take a look at this video refuting a similar science denier. It'll give you a real idea of how science works. The video also specifically addresses the so-called "reproducibility crisis".
https://youtu.be/xglo2n2AMGc
Yes, obviously this Chinese paper is garbage, but science is not.
Rodent BDE is a serious affliction and should not be treated as a comical joke.
Hmmmm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontiers_Media#Controversies
I'm not really familiar with this journal, but it sounds like they've had low standards for quite a long time now. There are some interesting comments about them under the Ars article, as well.
I mean, they just recently showed that a huge amount of scientific articles are just that, gibberish. Nonsensical scientific mumbo-jumbo wrapped up within a thin veneer of credibility. Scientific authors will pay for these in order to strengthen their resume.
I kinda wonder why they don't just skip a step, and just put fake stuff directly on the resume, but hey, they're the scientists
@jpreston2005 resumes are digital these days and you link to the DOI of your paper so recruiters and funders can check with one click.
More fuel for the anti-science YouTubers. They're going to have a ball with this. Several balls. And a dick, too.
You mean dck right?
THEY PUT IT IN A PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE!?
edit: nvm the article is apparently low quality anyways