| ▲ | DAlperin 2 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||
Moving this out of a subthread, but I can't find any sources corroborating the the phenomenon described in this article. In fact a lot of the literature from NASA seems to explicitly contradict the claims in the article[0][1]. Obviously not dispositive, but this article reads to me at least partially like AI confabulation. Perhaps my Google-fu is lacking here but I had Claude do a search as well for good measure and couldn't find any supporting evidence that way either. Without the author offering more primary sources I would advise against placing too much if any stock in this piece. [0] https://humanresearchroadmap.nasa.gov/Evidence/reports/BMed.... [1] https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-30583-2_... | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | slg 7 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
One good media literacy tip, unless a story is massive or there is some possibility of backlash to the writer(s), it's often a big warning sign when an article has a byline like this one "By Space Daily Editorial Team". It usually tells you no author(s) care enough about the story or are proud enough of the story to want credit for their individual work on that story. It's only made worse when you click on the accompanying "Editorial Process" link and see this: >We use AI tools as part of our publishing workflow. AI assists with research, source discovery, drafting, fact-checking support, and post-publication quality audits including broken-link scans and source verification. So this article might have been drafted by AI from sources and research done by AI, before finally being fact checked by AI. But they promise some unnamed human(s) definitely contributed at some point in that process, they just don't feel like putting their name on it. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | pierrec 43 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
>Obviously not dispositive You're too kind. The article is sloppily generated and is basically unchecked fiction presented as fact. It gives a few links and none of them support what it's saying. The "video version" of the article is even worse, it's a perfect example of the garbage that's currently filling up youtube: https://youtu.be/rmpbI4oMqwA | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | rfarley04 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||
Seemingly unrelated, I just saw some post on /new that was saying Dunning-Kruger had been debunked by some recent study. It looked pretty sus so I kagi'ed it and lo and behold guess what came up: https://spacedaily.com/j-v-the-dunning-kruger-effect-mapped-... | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||