you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 5 months ago* (3 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bohannon#Intentionally_misleading_chocolate_study

Yes, people would exactly do the same, because nobody reads anything but the headline of a paper. Even journalists don't.

AI didn't invent the problem, but it put the problem on steroids.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

    Even journalists don't

    Not sure what point your making here, I wouldn't expect most journalists to be great at reading the details of papers like this...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago

    Research and fact checking is what separates journalists from hacks.
    "Journalist" implies factual information, not science fiction. If someone writes a "news" story about the magic land of Xanth because they can't tell the difference between a Piers Anthony novel and a scientific study it's not Piers Anthony's fault for being too "tricky".

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    Vetting sources is the one thing we need journalists for. If they don't vet their sources, their work is without merit.

    Reading at least the methodology section of a paper and googling if the researchers and the institute exists, is the bare minimum of what a decent journalist should do.

    If they can't do that, then there's no advantage of a journalist over some random person posting on Facebook. Even Youtubers usually vet their sources better.

  • source
  • parent