If you're using AI to make content you're saving time and money but you're making shitty content. If you can't see the shittyness of the content, it's all the more reason you shouldn't be doing it.
Oct 13, 2026, 3:43 AM@grumpygamer Dunning-Kruger amplifier?
Oct 13, 2026, 7:24 PMOct 13, 2026, 8:22 PM@hypolite Very fair ;-)
@jbqueru @grumpygamer we should try to sell Dunning Kruger amplifiers to audiophiles
@grumpygamer the word I have been using is "Mediocracy"
@grumpygamer
There are cases when scientists publish papers that they have written with ai and don't even understand themselves. But the papers are good. That happens a lot as humanity has already produced a lot of knowledge and just hasn't connected the dots a lot of times.
That's is a good example why you are wrong with your absolutist statements. Good content can and does come from ai. You just hate ai.
@Noisecolor No good scientist is releasing a paper they don't understand. Doing so makes them not a good scientist. You thinking that is true kind of proves my point.
@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.
@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.
Oct 13, 2026, 5:40 AM@Noisecolor @grumpygamer okay but how do you know the paper is good if you can't understand what it says? A paper has one job, and that is to communicate results and share knowledge with other researchers. It doesn't have to be understood by everybody but it should be understood by people who study whatever it is about, so if even the person who did the work it is describing can't explain it then it has failed.
@uastronomer @grumpygamer
Not if it leads to other discoveries.
Oct 13, 2026, 7:34 AM@Noisecolor @grumpygamer How does a paper that nobody can read lead to other discoveries?
@grumpygamer @Noisecolor Exactly.
The entire point of a scientific paper is to communicate scientific results to (at least) other people working in the field. If not even the authors of the paper understand it then no one else can be expected to either, and it's a complete failure at the one job that a scientific paper has.
Oct 13, 2026, 7:47 AMExactly. GenAI produces something that looks plausibly like a good paper if you don't understand what you're reading. No true scientist would publish a paper without understanding it, without having tried to disprove its central thesis, or without being prepared to answer questions about it.
Can you provide a few example papers that meet the criteria you're talking about?
@eestileib @grumpygamer
No, that would consume way too much time and would be impossible for me to prove to you even if you were really open to it, which is uncertain.
It makes no sense to go into that. You can ignore it.
Do you have one example?
I remember the exhaustion proof of the four-color theorem, where it was too long for one person to realistically check all of it but people trusted the method, is that the kind of thing you're talking about?
PS I studied history and sociology of science so I *am* actually interested in how group epistemology works, if you have an example of a paper that the author claimed not to understand that was accepted by the larger community I would be fascinated.
Frustrated that this went from "happens a lot" to "can't give a single example" tbh.
Oct 13, 2026, 5:06 AM@grumpygamer Correction: "If you re using AI [...] you should'nt be doing it."
Even if it was of excellent quality, AI is still destroyng life on earth, stop using it, don't use it, period.
@grumpygamer (for the people in the back: this applies to code, too!)
@grumpygamer genAI
@grumpygamer Please define 'time' and 'money' compared to earth resources and global warming
@grumpygamer also you can't improve as you don't train the "making content muscle". Also AI doesn't improve by doing a task. So it will be shitty forever
@grumpygamer Okay Ron, but seriously what’s the plan when the IPs you created and lost through poor deals will be legally acquired by entities whose sole purpose is to monetize them through automated, AI-generated content pipelines? Just hope that it will be done by people who are as bourgeois, gentrified, culturally aware and well educated as you are? Will that kind of classist cultural gatekeeping suffice?
@grumpygamer ironically, while I read this my wife is watching a "documentary" on YouTube about the Italian town we visited yesterday. Images are all obvious slop - which pains me no end and makes me instantly doubt any of the "facts" presented.
At least this one seems to be original text - the first one was obviously LLM text and voice as well. All the content in YouTube about this historical town seem to be slop... So annoying!
@grumpygamer agreed 😄 but at the same time it's not as black and white(the idea, not the shitty things). I see AI as a tool that can automate some of the boring stuff, like refactoring bits of code. Trying out new concepts. And making placeholder graphics. I wouldn't release anything like that, no matter the color of it, unless it's a free perhaps.
@grumpygamer I disagree. If you mindlessly copy whatever the language model talks at you then yes. We should educate people on using technology instead of shunning the technology.