| ▲ | jklinger410 2 hours ago | |
When your entire job is confirming that science is valid, I expect a little more humility when it turns out you've missed a critical aspect. How did these 100 sources even get through the validation process? > Isn't disqualifying X months of potentially great research due to a misformed, but existing reference harsh? It will serve as a reminder not to cut any corners. | ||
| ▲ | paulmist an hour ago | parent [-] | |
> When your entire job is confirming that science is valid, I expect a little more humility when it turns out you've missed a critical aspect. I wouldn't call a misformed reference a critical issue, it happens. That's why we have peer reviews. I would contend drawing superficially valid conclusions from studies through use of AI is a much more burning problem that speaks more to the integrity of the author. > It will serve as a reminder not to cut any corners. Or yet another reason to ditch academic work for industry. I doubt the rise of scientific AI tools like AlphaXiv [1], whether you consider them beneficial or detrimental, can be avoided - calling for a level pragmatism. | ||