Technology

59299 readers

4599 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

165

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. (arstechnica.com)

submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

33 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 20 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

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".

[–] [email protected] 2 points 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.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

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)

[–] [email protected] 15 points 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.