As the first author on the salmon paper, yes, that was exactly our point. Researchers were capitalizing on chance in many cases as they failed to do effective corrections to the multiple comparisons problem. We argued with the dead fish that they should.
Curious what you find to be "bs" about the results of this paper? That statistical corrections are necessary when analysing fMRI scans to prevent spurious "activations" that are only there by chance?
I guess there's various reasons, ranging from "it's hard to make auto-layout algos produce stuff as dense as painstakingly handcrafted maps" to "let's make it harder to scrape/copy data"
Back then it was dedicated map makers that created maps. Now it's mainly programmers. So its not surprising that quality tanks when you go from disciplinary expert staff to IT day laborers.
I've been occasionally using futureme.org since ~15 years ago, in case you're a believer in the Lindy effect. FWIW I don't think I've ever used it for anything more than ~1 year ahead, that always seemed fun/interesting enough. Of course there's other considerations entering the picture if you plan ten years ahead, but then again this seems like the kind of fun/light-hearted thing where it doesn't really bother me that I might not end up reading it again --- life happens...
They do not deserve a shred of recommendation. This is just damage control, pretending that it did not happen never was an option. Instead they tried to claim that it was just a one of mistake. What it really shows is that nobody even bothers to read their articles before hitting publish and that AI is widely used internally.
You're absolutely right! but they can shove this euphemism. Just say that chatgpt wrote the article and no one read it before publishing, no need for all the fluff.
>> Just say that chatgpt wrote the article and no one read it before publishing
This is so interesting. I wonder if no human prompted for the article to be written either. I could see some kind of algorithm figuring out what to "write" about and prompting AI to create the articles automatically. Those are the jobs that are actually being replaced by AI - writing fluff crap to build an attention trap for ad revenue.
Very likely this already happens on slop websites (...which I can't name because I don't go there), which for example just republish press releases (which could be considered aggregation sites I guess), or which automatically scrape Reddit and translate them into listicles on the fly.
Fair play to them for owning up to their mistake, and not just pretending like it didn't happen!
That's what the legitimate media has done for the last couple of hundred years. Every issue of the New York Times has a Corrections section. I think the Washington Post's is called Corrections and Amplifications.
Bloggers just change the article and hope it didn't get cached in the Wayback Machine.
The editors were laid off and replaced by an LLM. Or more likely, the editorial staff was cut in half and the ones who were kept were told to use LLMs to handle the increased workload.
I find this hard to judge in the abstract, but I'm not quite convinced the situation for the modal company today is worse than their answer to "what if your colo rack catches fire" would have been twenty years ago.
I used to work at an SME that ran ~everything on its own colo'd hardware, and while it never got this bad, there were a couple instances of the CTO driving over to the dc because the oob access to some hung up server wasn't working anymore. Fun times...
Reminiscing: this was a rite of passage for pre-cloud remote systems administrators.
Proper hardware (Sun, Cisco) had a serial management interface (ideally "lights-out") which could be used to remedy many kinds of failures. Plus a terminal server with a dial-in modem on a POTS line (or adequate fakery), in case the drama took out IP routing.
Then came Linux on x86, and it took waytoomanyyears for the hardware vendors to outgrow the platform's microsoft local-only deployment model. Aside from Dell and maybe Supermicro, I'm not sure if they ever worked it out.
Then came the cloud. Ironically, all of our systems are up and happy today, but services that rely on partner integrations are down. The only good thing about this is that it's not me running around trying to get it fixed. :)
This. I've started thinking of it like this — the iPad, in my case, has an absolutely abysmal cost to usage ratio. On the far other end of the spectrum (and in a similar form factor if you squint) is probably my Kindle.
That being said, _some_ people I know consistently seem to get lots of work use out of their tablets, and I can't quite put my finger on where we differ.
I had to hand down my iPad Pro 3rd Gen (the one with A12x Bionic chip) to my daughter for her school use.
I got myself a 13" iPad Air (M2 chip) this time and Apple Pencil Pro (from Apple Refurbished store). The larger screen size isn't that much of a botheration as I thought it might be. On the flip side, the screen size is a lot closer to an A4 sheet and writing on it feels much better. I use Paperlike screen cover and pencil tips too.
I don't have Netflix or YouTube installed on it.
I only use it for Apple Books, Kindle, Notes and now Preview app is there as well.
I might this time even use it as Sidekick and remote access IDEs running on my MBP but not sure if I want to do that yet on the iPad.
Tangential, but I was very surprised to learn recently that my country still has a more or less nationwide POCSAG pager network where only some users encrypt their traffic
I'm quite firmly on the side of "don't do bad stuff", even way before crossing the line to wondering how you'd look in the proverbial orange jumpsuit. But two things about this are often under-discussed IMO.
Firstly, personal costs can be high even before full-blown whistleblowing, the struggles of which are well reported. The best case is usually that you're looking for a new job. It is clear to me that that's better than committing a crime or gravely unethical action, but not everyone always has good alternatives, enough financial safety, and no major economic responsibilities to cover at home.
This also goes for mental costs: I have previously come close to burnout spending months trying to rectify a clearly very bad and doomed situation. The only reward at the other end was the bitter vindication of seeing a project I deeply cared about crash and burn from afar after cutting my losses. And I personally know people who suffered far greater damage and took longer to recover from it, even in cases where they merely uncovered some big skeleton in the closet that was not even the fault of anyone currently in charge or clearly malicious. In many cases, management will be somewhere between actively complicit and themselves stuck in a bad situation with barely enough (perceived) agency to fix things the right way, which doesn't help.
Secondly, short of "going to war" and dedicating your entire life to changing something, saving yourself is usually the best you can hope for. That's obviously better than being complicit and possibly liable. I also like being able to sleep at night knowing I have principles. But if you have the righteousness to refuse to become complicit, it's quite frustrating to come to terms with the fact that you mostly won't be able to set things straight properly unless you are in a very influential position. I know that's often not really my responsibility if I'm not higher up, but it still doesn't sit right with me that I can't do more.
> not everyone always has good alternatives, enough financial safety, and no major economic responsibilities to cover at home.
I recommend planning for this (if you can). Set money aside sufficient to cover your costs until you can get another job so that you can quit at any time. Negotiate your deals so that you don't end up with substantial golden handcuffs (i.e. cash > equity, especially with long vesting periods).
This helps a lot with maintaining an ethical position, but is also helpful for other negotiations. Effectively you are maintaining a good BATNA[1].
whole-heartedly seconded, it helps with anything from "they want me to do something really bad" all the way to "I'm really not feeling it anymore here"
Not proof, per se, but the term to look up is "inbound marketing".
HubSpot was very big on pushing companies to publish lots of content like blog posts and then having calls to action for people to submit their info in exchange for a whitepaper download or similar. Predictably if your main goal is to consistently publish blog posts and whitepapers to generate leads, and you don't have a strong culture of quality and good writing, it's going to lead to lots of slop (even before you could automate writing it with AI).
That being said, I'm not sure how much to blame HubSpot vs. this just generally having been a marketing approach/idea that was "in the air" while it sort of worked (for some definition of "worked"). I sort of remember a handful of companies at the time doing pretty good blog/content marketing by writing useful and thoughtful stuff, and then lots of companies going „got it, make blog and profit!“. But possible that the HubSpot push accelerated that a lot — I don‘t feel like I have a good intuition about that part.
Inbound marketing is pretty explicitly about creating high quality content that builds a business's credibility, making prospects more likely to want to engage and buy from said business. Creating slop 'top 10' lists is kind of the opposite, pushing customers away. It's a bit of a stretch, therefore to blame HubSpot for garbage content on the internet - since doing this is the opposite of what they advocated. Grifters are always going to be around looking to make a quick buck with the least amount of effort possible.
> Inbound marketing is pretty explicitly about creating high quality content that builds a business's credibility, making prospects more likely to want to engage and buy from said business
Well, yeah, I agree and would probably pursue it like this if I was running a business. However I get the impression that is not what happened at many places that adopted the approach, including one I've previously worked for.
reply