The term is “Vegetative Electron Microscopy,” same as the other articles on this you may have seen.
There was a comment yesterday that offered a simpler explanation than the headline’s conclusion.
The papers were published by Iranian researchers and in Farsi “scanning” (روبشی) and “vegetative” (رويشی) differ only by one character (ب and یـ) which also happen to be adjacent on the keyboard.
That is, there’s some evidence that this is a typo or mistranslation that has been reused among non-native speakers, as opposed to a hallucination. If so, it could still be a LM replicating the error, but I’ve definitely seen humans do the exact same thing, especially when there’s a strong language barrier.
Edit: brevity
A couple of decades ago I got really confused because I found a lot of papers referring to “comer” cubes, but could not find an actual definition. Eventually I figured out that these were actually “corner” cubes, but somewhere a transcription error occurred that merged the r and n into an m, and this error kept getting propagated because people were just copying and pasting.
That’s an apt example from English, especially given the visual similarity of the error.
It’s the kind of error we would expect AI to be especially resilient against, since the phrase “corner cube” probably appears many times in the training dataset.
Likewise scanning electron microscopes are common instruments in many schools and commercial labs, so an AI writing tool is likely to infer a correction needed given the close similarity.
Transcription errors by human authors, however, have been dutifully copied into future works since we began writing stuff down.
Yes. Between that and some bad OCR not recognizing text in columns, causing it to see these words in separate columns as a single phrase, it makes sense that it would be replicated in machine translations.
So at least 22 papers from the study were AI generated and not checked afterwards.
This says more about
the authorsthe AI users who claim authorship than about AI.i am not in any way qualified to say what i’m about to say, so you should probably just stop reading.
awt awt awt awt a tawr tat awt aw ta awrt gawr tgar a aiuknalrghber,jhmngbae,rkjgaat aawt aaaera r aw aergaaegaebaen,rjhbae,rjgabear aw awr awr aw awert
Nyarlathotep? Is that you?
you’re just flirting with me because you want me to show you me cartouche
Can’t it be both?
okay, buy i’m going to stand by my typo. it’s gonna be a ginger cartouche. i hope you’re ready
Iä iä!
Just imagine how many slip through the cracks
At least one major paper did, although it used AI images instead of text.
There was a paper with AI generated diagrams that not only passed peer review somehow, btu was published in a pretty major reputable journal.
You’d have normally expected them to catch it in peer review and decline to publish, especially as they took it down later.
Nothing in the Frontiers is reputable among scientists. It gets linked a lot on Reddit because it’s open access, but scientists tend to view it as essentially the not-actually-peer-reviewed equivalent of a preprint. In the past, if all reviewers recommend rejection at Frontiers, the editor would be forcibly assigned new reviewers by the publishing staff. This would continue until the manuscript would get accepted. Not sure if that’s still the same (I’ve blocked all Frontiers emails), but it’s not correct to call a Frontiers journal a major reputable journal.
The future sucks.
And AI is dumb AF and we’ve already basically thrown in the towel on having it run everything/everyone
Saying “AI is dumb” is like saying “plants taste bad”
You’re probably talking about our current Large Language Models.
No I’m talking about shitty AI products being used for shit they shouldn’t be used for like determining which US workers to fire or spreading election propaganda to elect clowns. Not quite the super-intelligent overlords i thought would take over society
It’s semantics, but I think the person above is just pointing out that “AI” is an old umbrella term that refers to a lot of technologies that include previous current and future work, and shouldn’t necessarily be bound forever to one era’s misapprehension and misuse of a particular subset of those technologies.
Prior examples of AI included early work by Alan Turing. Current examples include tools that enable people with disabilities. Future examples might offer solutions to major problems we face as a society. It would be a shame if use of a term as a buzzword was all it took to kill a discipline.
After a few YT shorts with generated science facts I quit. The subtitles are incorrect and the animations are messed up, it’s like done on purpose. Or saving penguins from plastics and then suddenly happy feet in the wild.
I don’t need AI to make up bullshit - Electroservo Hypermacrohydraulic. And I didn’t even need to burn down a rainforest to invent it.
I don’t even need to come up with my own BS, when I can just copy some crazy nonsense written by other people. Here’s a sample:
UNDERSTANDING CRYSTAL VIBRATIONAL FREQUENCIES
Every crystal on Earth possesses its own energetic signature, measured in Hertz (Hz) or megahertz (MHz). These frequencies interact with our body’s energy field, creating resonance that can promote healing and balance.
As if sources even matter when traversing this deep in Crazy Town, but there you go anyway.
Crystals do have their own energetic signature frequencies though! Quartz is a good example; we use its piezoelectric and resonance properties to make cheap but relatively accurate oscillators.
That article says it’s 32 768 Hz, which is strangely close to some of the figures you can find on wikipedia.
Brb making a necklace of crystal oscillators to heal and balance my body. (And yeah 32768 Hz is a pretty common value for oscillators; interesting the crystal pseudoscientists use it too).
Two sentences there. The first is factually correct, though useless. The second is obviously complete bullshit, though strangely accepted by quite a few otherwise intelligent people.
Energy is a peculiar word, because it’s used by new-age loonies (and scammer), sci-fi authors and even real scientists. However, I don’t think I’ve ever heard a scientist use the longer term “energy field”, but the first groups certainly seem to love it. When scientists speak of fields, they prefer to specify exactly what kind of field it is (e.g. magnetic or electric).
If I ever get to own a (farming) field of my own, I’m going to name it “Energy Field”, just to mess with everyone. Maybe I should set up a solar panel there, so that the name actually made sense.
But the Rockwell Turbo-Encabulator can do that with twice the diractance
You just need to make sure you purge the gallium matrix before you attune anything above 50 MHz.
Electric meat is astoundingly efficient at making bullshit.
Eh, humans are pretty good at burning rainforests too. And making up bullshit. The main problem is that we expect AI to be better than us, when really only the marketing guys have said that.
don’t make sense. Kind of like this AI-generated image.
Ancient optoelectronic circuitry from the future?
Wait till they find out about all the papers with scientific terms made up by humans
