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 2 years ago by [M, B] to c/technology@lemmy.world
31 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
[+] -21 points 2 years ago (3 children)

The article was also retracted after 3 days.

Scientific articles should never be retracted. Publishers should make that impossible. Scientists should have balls and be able to stand by their word.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 2 years 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".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    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)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    Retractions are important in case issues with the method are found after publication. For example, if it turns out a piece of equipment was improperly calibrated and so the results can't be trusted, a retraction of any work based on those results would be expected.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent