Highlight the space just after the abstract of my own most recent arXiv preprint for a surprise. :-)
Last week, we learned that area transphobe Sabine Hossenfelder is using her arXiv-posting privileges to shill Eric Weinstein's bullshit. I have poked around the places where I'd expect to find technical discussion of a physics preprint, and I've come up with nothing. The Stubsack thread, as superficial as it was, has been the most substantive conversation about her post's actual content.
NeurIPS is one of the big conferences for machine learning. Having your work accepted there is purportedly equivalent to getting a paper published in a top-notch journal in physics (a field that holds big conferences but treats journals as more the venues of record). Today I learned that NeurIPS endorses peer reviewers asking questions to chatbots during the review process. On their FAQ page for reviewers, they include the question
I often use LLMs to help me understand concepts and draft my writing. Can I use LLMs during the review process?
And their response is not shut the fuck up, the worms have reached your brain and we will have to operate. You know, the bare minimum that any decent person would ask for.
You can use resources (e.g. publications on Google Scholar, Wikipedia articles, interactions with LLMs and/or human experts without sharing the paper submissions) to enhance your understanding of certain concepts and to check the grammaticality and phrasing of your written review. Please exercise caution in these cases so you do not accidentally leak confidential information in the process.
"Yeah, go ahead, ask 'Grok is this true', but pretty please don't use the exact words from the paper you are reviewing. We are confident that the same people who turn to a machine to paraphrase their own writing will do so by hand first this time."
Please remember that you are responsible for the quality and accuracy of your submitted review regardless of any tools, resources, or other help you used to construct the final review.
"Having positioned yourself at the outlet pipe of the bullshit fountain and opened your mouth, please imbibe responsibly."
Far be it for me to suggest that NeurIPS taking an actually ethical stance about bullshit-fountain technology would call into question the presentations being made there and thus imperil their funding stream. But, I mean, if the shoe fits....
Google seems to have turned off the -ai in search on iPhone (Safari browser)and overrides it to return an AI-generated result now. Anyone got a fucking workaround on this bc I do not want to see that shit
something something Ed Zitron really needs an editldr
That's a ghastly amount of money to burn, particularly when it comes to children's education.
Sometimes they file reports against regulars, accusing them of "ableism" for being anti-slop-machine. That's also entertaining.
Disclaimer: abstract above, content and main ideas are human-written; the full text below is written with significant help of AI but is human-verified as well as by other AIs.
"Oh, that pizza sauce recipe that calls for glue? It's totally OK, I checked it out with MechaHitler."
The trouble is that the overlap between the circles for "stuff I am excited enough to talk about" and "stuff that anybody would subscribe to a podcast for" is about the size of a rice grain.
Nope, not a clue.
Dang, maybe I should get in on that. I already own a microphone and everything.
Good catch; thanks. I think I had too many awful.system tabs open at once.