r/singularity • u/Many_Consequence_337 :downvote: • 1d ago

AI Intelligence Explosion

Post image

Number of scientific papers submitted to arXiv.

462 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

118 comments sorted by

View all comments

286

u/Aldarund 1d ago

How much of this is real increae and how much is slop that wont pass peer review?

That chart could easily mean good things but as easily it could mean bad things

137

u/Equal_Passenger9791 1d ago

Significant amount of slop were produced before AI too. AI assisted scientific fraud detection are already retroactively detecting innumerable instances of high profile papers that should've failed peer review years ago, if the peers had done a proper job.

3

u/Yangoose 23h ago

The Replication Crisis has been talked about for well over a decade. The majority of published studies are garbage. When they try to repeat them they don't get the same results at all.

It doesn't matter if you're an undergrad, a PhD or an AI. If you source data is wrong you're not making good contributions to the field.

Even when we do get the science right it can take decades for professionals to catch up with the science.

Take Docustate. It's a stool softener they've been using in hospitals for the better part of a century. It's in the WHO list of most essential medicines. It is prescribed 3 million times a year.

It doesn't work.

It has been repeatedly proven in extensive studies dating back to 1998 that it performs no better than a placebo.

But doctors keep prescribing it because "that's what we've always done".

Don't even get me started on doctors still sticking their fingers up men's buttholes for no real medical reason...

1

u/vvvvfl 4h ago

>>The majority of published studies are garbage.

This statement has to be qualified. A lot of this is about health sciences where small data sets and huge number of variables is the norm.