Scientists aghast at bizarre AI rat with huge genitals in peer-reviewed article
arstechnica.com
It's unclear how such egregiously bad images made it through peer-review.

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.::It’s unclear how such egregiously bad images made it through peer-review.

  • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.eeEnglish
    20·
    9 months ago

    no it’s important to have a mechanism by which to say “this was wrong. we fucked up. don’t use this as a source, attempt to replicate it, or use its results as a basis for new research.” intellectual honesty and rigor are more important than “balls”.

    • Scubus@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      2·
      9 months ago

      I don’t see the problem with attempting to replicate it, so long as you are informed that (as far as we now know) the experiment will not go the way it was intended. But you might learn something new, or find out that in specific circumstances, it actually does work.

    • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.worldEnglish
      27·
      9 months ago

      to have a mechanism by which to say "this was wrong. we fucked up.

      Yes. But then you do not delete anything. You ADD this statement and leave the original stuff untouched, so that everybody can see afterwards what has been going on.

      (Unless you want to become a politician)

      • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.eeEnglish
        15·
        9 months ago

        funny, that’s exactly what a retraction is. you don’t destroy the original stuff, you just publish a statement that says “Hey, that stuff? it’s no good.” individual journals have their own policies, of course, but that’s the template from which reputable journals build their policies. so the problem you’re trying to fix simply doesn’t exist.