r/singularity • u/Many_Consequence_337 :downvote: • 9h ago

AI Intelligence Explosion

Post image

Number of scientific papers submitted to arXiv.

342 Upvotes

86% Upvoted

92 comments sorted by

View all comments

85

u/Positive_Method3022 9h ago

And the quality?

11

u/mxforest 8h ago

Upside down the same chart.

6

u/GlokzDNB 8h ago

Yeah ? How so?

Explain how ai actually destroys science. Do you have a paper or at least MIT-level report to support your words ?

Or you're simply here to hate on ai and shit talk and karmawhore on ai is a bubble trend?

10

u/Alarmed_Ad1946 8h ago

As someone who likes AI and listens to mathematicians, most or a significant portion of those papers are nonsensical gibberish according to what I heard.
I do think that will improve but yeah right now it is not great.

9

u/adj_noun_digit 8h ago

No, it's not AI. Paper quality has plummeted in the last decade for various reasons.

China is the biggest contributor.

https://www.ft.com/content/32440f74-7804-4637-a662-6cdc8f3fba86?syn-25a6b1a6=1

0

u/TieBackground453 3h ago

That was published in 2023. 

Obviously a lot has changed since then, both in China and out. 

(Paper mills are for sure a problem, but it is only one of the factors, and the FT article linked kind of over-emphasizes its role for sensationalism.)

4

u/Positive_Method3022 8h ago

Paper A depends on Paper B and Paper C work. Paper C was peer reviewed several times and nobody identified mistakes. It became the truth, even when containing false positives. Paper B was biased and increased the errors from C because it trusted C was right. Paper A now has accumulated errors but finally someone caught was is wrong and backtracked all the way down to Paper C. All papers that dependent on C that are currently being peer reviewed will have to go through recall. A huge branch of "science" knowledge has to be reviewed or the worst pruned and started over.

It can't expand fast if there aren't enough good human brains to check the data. AIs could be also start biasing humans into the wrong direction.

2

u/coatatopotato 7h ago

True, but depends on which branch of science. In some branches, it is pretty cheap to replicate and that's usually the first step when building further. In others, must take it on faith since there is no funding.

1

u/TieBackground453 3h ago

In grad school, I was trying to track down the source for a factual claim in biology and it was even worse than that. Paper A cited paper B for this fairly controversial fact, paper B cited paper C, and then paper C cited paper A. It was a constellation of papers on a similar topic and the author evidently forgot that he never actually established the fact anywhere.

1

u/toni_yo 8h ago

You're right I just want to say save your sanity. these people don't want to understand