Post by @neuralreckoning@neuromatch.social

@neuralreckoning@neuromatch.social 4 hours ago

Everyone is praising this article, but I find it a bit disingenuous. He criticises Taylorism ("scientific management") but that's exactly what researchers are subject to, and the glam publication economy is at the heart of it.

Science magazine's business model, and the source of its editor's $700k salary, rely on this exploitation of academic labour. There wouldn't be an AI slop paper problem if it weren't for journals and ranking researchers by publication metrics, because there'd be nothing to gain from generating slop.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aek5570

8 Replies

0 Boosts

Nick Markov

@nsmarkov@c.im 56 minutes ago

@neuralreckoning I don't see why people would be praising this article.. But it is good to see you back on the network!

OddOpinions5

@failedLyndonLaRouchite@mas.to 2 hours ago

@neuralreckoning

The CEO of teh HHMI is paid way more

Dan Goodman

@neuralreckoning@neuromatch.social 1 hour ago

@failedLyndonLaRouchite indeed! Extraordinary, but not sure if relevant?

OddOpinions5

@failedLyndonLaRouchite@mas.to 1 hour ago

@neuralreckoning

my view is that we peons, more or less speaking, look at the grotesque salaries of the CEOs and it is demoralizing and it breeds an attitude of sarcasm toward science

why slave to get out a paper to get a grant when you can be a CEO of some bit thing and pull down a cool million+ a year ?

Pedro Mendes

@gepasi@fediscience.org 3 hours ago

@neuralreckoning I've got mixed feelings; the article is certainly right and highlights important issues. This is even more important at a time of extreme hype where loud voices are drowning these issues.

On the other hand, I agree that this is coming from a place that has its own very bad issues.

Yet, I think we should be able to do both things: expose the "emperor's clothes" of the AI push, and expose the nefarious scientific publication system.

In this case I welcome their exposing the fallacies of AI boosting.

We can continue to expose the publication industry's exploitation of science (funding)

Dan Goodman

@neuralreckoning@neuromatch.social 1 hour ago

@gepasi sure, it's better that he's saying this than being gung ho on AI, but many people are saying this sort of thing, including many who are not personally profiting from exploitation of academic labour.

Stephen Royle

@steveroyle@biologists.social 3 hours ago

@neuralreckoning good point. I suppose he is saying “AI in scientific publishing: Slower, worse, and more expensive” but overlooking “Scientific publishing is slow, bad, and expensive" in the first place.

lower-value human capital

@sennoma@chaos.social 4 hours ago

@neuralreckoning And we could turn the problem off like a light switch if it weren't for all the researchers whose attitude is "yes, you're right, but it will have to wait until I get my two Nature papers and tenure, sorry."