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
[–] -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