@grumpygamer
Your argument comes from your feeling.
My argument is sort of a truism: If the content is good, the content is good.
You can debate the ethical side of the source, but the actual content.
Oct 13, 2026, 5:09 AM@Noisecolor @grumpygamer As a researcher, hell no. You should understand every word and idea you put in a paper. If you don't, you're not doing good science. This is basic shit.
And yes, I'd say the same thing even if they didn't use AI. That doesn't somehow magically turn bullshit into great science.
@chiraag @grumpygamer
Id say good content is good content. If the research paper discovers something new and especially if that leads to new discoveries, thats good content.
@Noisecolor @chiraag @grumpygamer It doesn’t ”discover” anything if it’s not comprehensible.
@ahltorp @chiraag @grumpygamer
You can discover something and not understand it. Thats true about most discoveries ever made.
@Noisecolor @chiraag @grumpygamer I can find a pebble on the beach. Does that mean that I have now discovered physics? No.
@ahltorp @chiraag @grumpygamer
If you describe how its falling or moving, yes you have! And you dont need to even understand special relativity.
@Noisecolor @chiraag @grumpygamer Yes, but if you don't understand what you are describing, you haven't discovered anything.
@ahltorp
Semantics. The content has value.
@chiraag @grumpygamer
@Noisecolor I’m glad you’re starting to describe what words mean.
@ahltorp That was the original point. Can content have value when its written by AI.
@Noisecolor @ahltorp there was a lot of good content in that report that linked autism to vaccines. It wasn’t the conclusion, or any of the summaries. It wasn’t the methodology or critical thinking, but many of the datapoints were correct. The author didn’t u see stand the information so the paper wasn’t good, regardless of the data used inside of it. If it can’t be trusted you can’t say it’s good content.
@passwordsarehard4 @ahltorp
It can be when its verified. No matter how it was generated.
@Noisecolor @ahltorp if you have to recreate a report to verify its contents each time, the AI didn’t generate it you did. The unverified report was useless, it had to be translated by you to turn it into something that could be trusted and used. The AI output is raw ore with 20% impurities, you are judging the results after you smelt it down.
Oct 13, 2026, 9:46 AM@Noisecolor @chiraag @grumpygamer a paper doesn’t discover anything. A paper describes what has been discovered and the process by which it was discovered. What you seem to be saying is that if enough shit is thrown at the wall some of it might stick.
@spzb @chiraag @grumpygamer
No. That is not what im saying at all. Its strange thats you would say that.
Oct 13, 2026, 2:44 PM@Noisecolor @chiraag @grumpygamer literal quote : "If the research paper discovers something new"
Oct 13, 2026, 3:03 PM@spzb @Noisecolor @grumpygamer Papers don't discover anything though...researchers do. And someone who doesn't understand _what_ they discovered and _how_ (as well as ideally having some plausible explanation of _why_ it might make sense) is just a shitty "researcher".
Oct 13, 2026, 12:21 PM@Noisecolor @grumpygamer Science isn't "content" and scientists aren't influencers holy shit. If you don't understand what you are publishing, you are a bad scientist, and that has nothing to do with AI.
Even if *others* don't understand the ramifications, that's fine. History is replete with those. But if *you* don't understand and can't validate what you're publishing, you're a bad scientist and a fraud.
No scientist I know would agree with you (thank God).
@chiraag @grumpygamer
People have been publishing science they dont fully understand since ever. Its kind of what we do. Some stuff we understand, some stuff we just observe, but still use in the future.
Its not a black and white thing and it was just use an extreme example.
Contended point was whether AI can create valuable content. I think it can and discoveries made with ai prove that.
Oct 13, 2026, 2:44 PM@Noisecolor @grumpygamer Scientists not fully understanding _why_ something happens (but having hypotheses) is different from someone not understanding what they are putting in their paper. The two are not comparable at all.
In one case, we understand _that_ something happens (b/c of experiments) and have educated guesses as to why. In the other, the "scientist" can't even explain _what they did_, let alone why it happened. Those are not the same thing.
@Noisecolor @grumpygamer you seriously think that anything from AI can be 'good' in any meaningful sense of the word? Boy, have you been hoodwinked.
@Noisecolor @grumpygamer how can you claim content is good if no one understands it?
@Noisecolor @grumpygamer Unfortunately, that argument doesn't fly on Mastodon. Content is good, until you hear it's written by AI, then you have always found it flawed anyway. No place for objectivism here. 😢
@erwinrossen @Noisecolor @grumpygamer
Ayn Rand can sit and spin, Objectivism doesn't deserve any respect on Mastodon.
@Noisecolor @grumpygamer your truism is a "false premise" fallacy.
Science is about understanding (and explaining).
The only way we know scientific content is actually good is if at least a few scientists validate it by understanding it and eventually successfully replicate or exploit the results.
AI content has not been understood by the meat proxy that shared it, so it lacks the very first step. The humans which prove (or disprove) that, are making the actual science. And why should anyone have their research agenda dictated by random enterprises *for free*? It's already as bad as it is with proper funding.