Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 89
3/15/2024, 10:31:18 PM
X
In reply to:
Derya Unutmaz, MD
@DeryaTR_
·
570d
@GaryMarcus @linasvepstas @say_cem I am not pretending it’s fine. My point is that this has nothing to do with LLMs. Most papers are of poor quality, and science advances because of a minority of publications; this has always been the case.

So please stop blaming the LLM for the flaws in human nature.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
570d
@DeryaTR_ @linasvepstas @say_cem Sure. But given how atrociously lax the editing was by both the reviewers and the authors on the introduction, you can’t trust that the study or its discussion or analysis was carefully reviewed, nor that that is was written by humans.

Stop pretending like this is totally fine.
Derya Unutmaz, MD
@DeryaTR_
·
570d
@linasvepstas @say_cem @GaryMarcus Most of their journals mediocre at best. Also this is totally editors and proof readers fault not picking up on this. Also as i mentioned before introduction part of the paper is unimportant for the findings.
Linas
@linasvepstas
·
570d
@DeryaTR_ @say_cem @GaryMarcus Elsevier is a top-tier publisher. Maybe not quite as respected as Springer, but maybe #2 or #3 in respectability ranking. Here's another screenshot:
Pтiт Poиeч de Fiиdцs
@0xdefec7edcafe
·
570d
Certainly, here is a possible introduction for your topic:
Derya Unutmaz, MD
@DeryaTR_
·
570d
@say_cem @linasvepstas @GaryMarcus Totally agree. In fact in some of these journals there are no reviewers, you pay you publish!
Cem Say
@say_cem
·
570d
@linasvepstas @DeryaTR_ @GaryMarcus Doesn't this latest scandal show that the human reviewers and editors screwed up? In fact, if a LLM reviewed those papers, it would have noticed that specific kind of anomaly easily, right?

The statement is part of a technical discussion regarding the use of language models (LLMs) and their impact on the quality of scientific publications. The tone is critical but constructive, focusing on the inherent limitations of LLMs and the responsibility of users to apply them with care. The intent is to contribute to the conversation about the proper use of technology in scientific research and to caution against misuse.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm but rather warns against potential misuse of technology. [+1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others by focusing on the issue rather than individuals. [+1]
  3. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement promotes understanding of the limitations of LLMs and encourages careful use. [+1]
  4. Principle 5:
    I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
    The statement engages in constructive criticism by highlighting a problem and implying the need for careful application. [+1]
  5. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement acknowledges the potential for mistakes when using LLMs without sufficient care. [+1]
  6. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement uses the platform responsibly to discuss the implications of technology on scientific integrity. [+1]