The Year of the Big-Balled Rat
We recorded 8 claims from this post. 2 were checked against evidence. 6 can’t be checked. Read the post at its source.
Claims from this post (8)
In the order they appear in the post. Each quotation is the speaker’s words in this post. A label such as “Supported” or “Can’t be checked” is the claim’s current assessment; its page has the evidence and the reasons.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“And it may get a lot worse.”
What we tested: Generative AI's damage to science may get a lot worse.
Assessment: SupportedSaid
“GenAI is messing with science.”
What we tested: Generative AI is currently damaging science.
What happened: The original paper expressly identifies Midjourney as the source of its images. It is evidence of AI provenance, not evidence that the paper's scientific assertions are reliable. (Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology; Xinyu Guo, Liang Dong and Dingjun Hao, )
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
“Two clearest examples so far this year, are the now retracted paper with the above-mentioned rat and a new lithium battery paper, with an opening sentence clearly written by an LLM.”
What we tested: In 2024 so far, a now-retracted paper with an AI-generated rat image and a lithium battery paper with an LLM-written opening sentence are the clearest examples of GenAI contaminating science.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“I am guessing there may be other errors in that paper, too, given the well-known tendency of LLMs to hallucinate in plausible ways that may initially escape notice.”
What we tested: LLMs tend to hallucinate in plausible ways that may escape notice, so the lithium battery paper may contain other errors.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“I understand the utility in using LLMs for writing and illustration etc, particularly for nonnative speakers, but the long term consequences on science may be severe.”
What we tested: Although using LLMs for writing and illustration has utility, particularly for nonnative speakers, the long-term consequences of LLM use on science may be severe.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“GenAI-created garbage could quickly overwhelm their reviewing processes, leading to a precipitous drop in reputation.”
What we tested: GenAI-created garbage submissions could quickly overwhelm journals' reviewing processes and cause a precipitous drop in their reputation.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“As ever, LLM developers are unlikely to be held to account.”
What we tested: LLM developers are unlikely to be held accountable for GenAI damage to scientific publishing.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“Side note:, this is also a potential five-alarm fire for journal publishers, since for them reputation is all they have got.”
What we tested: GenAI-generated content in papers is a potential major crisis for journal publishers because their value rests on reputation.