Andrew King’s Post

On the Subject of Establishing Trust: My new rule with content on this slopified feed is simple: see an “AI” image, assume “AI” thinking. So I don’t click. I know that “not all people using slop images used AI to cognitively offload their thinking,” but with the overwhelming amount of slop content that’s out there now, the correlation is, in my humble experience, high enough to avoid the click.

Unfortunately these types of interactions seem increasingly common. We need the prestige journals to take this more seriously. See here for our recent post https://www.linkedin.com/posts/douglas-sheil-55330a9a_academicpublishing-scientificintegrity-openscience-activity-7418940767680749568-55L-?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_android&rcm=ACoAABUMCo8BrLwsbmfOYxByVavYPlYIkGcQH9s

A good read. Are some fields more prone to this than others? If I had to guess then I’d say it was rarer in humanities.

Just ran across this: https://theconversation.com/when-science-discourages-correction-how-publishers-profit-from-mistakes-272657

I admire your persistence! It is a huge service from you. At least the community needs to know that there are people who cares deeply about scientific integrity and will seek further clarification when there’s compelling evidence against it. Personally, I am slightly worn down by my own such pursuit. Need more encouragement from you Andrew King

Thank you for your tireless (and often thankless) efforts on behalf of sound science. In the social media era, where every "influencer" and owner of a platform can spout truth-free opinions, it's more important than ever that the academic community uphold high standards.

This kind of unethical behavior undermines public trust in science. The scientific community bemoans the loss of public trust in science, but we fail to acknowledge our own contributions to this loss. See also: https://www.strukturelle.ch/en/post/when-scientific-institutions-allow-unethical-behavior-by-scientists-why-should-the-public-trust-in

Wow. there's so much that is important here. First, yes, "self-regulation" is an oxymoron, in science, as in business and governance. But... in science, peer review is supposed to play the role of regulation. but clearly it fails, particularly if colleagues turn a blind eye and editors refuse to take complains seriously. Second, this is consistent with my findings (and others) that universities do not take research integrity seriously enough. We have lots of examples. See one here: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aec4187

Well at least Bob Eccles hasn’t blocked you, yet. Thanks for continuing to speak out.

The AI slop problem is now in scientific research publication as well. I just saw an article about false references and other problems with submissions. And peer reviewers are now leaning on AI tools for assistance. I thought this was an interesting experiment with AI generation going between image and text description. Seems to be after a number of iterations there is a "regression to the mean" with more and more information removed as the series of conversions progresses. https://theconversation.com/ai-induced-cultural-stagnation-is-no-longer-speculation-its-already-happening-272488