Post

(emphasis on "yet," homer Simpson jpg)

this was painful to read

The photo looks ai generated. Nature has to be parodying ai users to demonstrate the travesty of ai slop.

I feel like over the past few months, after never seeing any Nature headline, I'm constantly bombarded with Nature dropping bad article about AI after bad article. How do they even manage it? Consistently dropping worse and worse AI takes, it's shocking.

If you are that bad at putting an argument together on paper, then maybe find another role in life?

He is a thought leader. It's only out of respect of the thoughts he is leading that he was given the option to revise without complete fabrication of his words.

Professor Bergstrom, do you have any specific thoughts on banning computers (and technology in general) throughout K-12 education? I've tried searching on Google, but your latest work on Bullshit Machines seems to crowd out anything matching my query.

"include a weasel-worded half sincere acknowledgement that this was written by ai, at a place in the text that almost everyone will miss"

His own story makes it clear that he didn’t declare it in his original submission. Otherwise, the editor wouldn’t have had to write him and ask him if he had used AI.

Just gonna start calling these types of people Thoughtless Leaders

ThE dEbAtE wE nOw NeEd: "Authoring a piece of writing is more than just having a vague idea: one needs to put in effort to choose the correct words, express the thoughts clearly, and the process itself leads to a better understanding and clarity in the original ideas" vs. "no it doesn't"

Self proclaimed Thought Leader = 🚩

I can't even read two sentences of this without my brain going flat, it's just slop about slop. I guess that's the point, and that he's NOT the author of this, it's slop.

I snuck "yet" in there — thinking of this meme exactly!

The thread as a shareable webpage: https://skywriter.blue/@carlbergstrom.com/3mtf4ei7nnk2l

Every accusation, etc.

(It's nearly two years old, and a lot has happened since then. I never went throught with the project, and the site is just at 2.500 reviews, all written by humans)

You could do a whole Calling Bullshit sequel on this person I think

I couldn’t get through half of it before ditching. So embarrassing.

Excuse me, that’s “thought leader” of the worst take on AI yet published by Nature.

Imagining him imagining Nature can't replace him with a cheaper and faster LLM.

Was he the author though ...

(And consequently, nothing it produces is protected by intellectual property laws)

We have really abandoned "self respect" wholesale, haven't we?

😮

*pretending to be

he prefers “though leader”

I read it out of morbid curiosity, and wow, was that awful, both the argument and the "writing."

That editor does not need his forgiveness, or his validation! She did not err! He erred! He got caught! I don't like that it was algorithmic detection that was used, but he messed up! Claude is a tool for substituting our reality with his own in which both-sidesing this is not absurd.

“Author”?

Who's the author? 'cause it's certainly not this dude It came from the void, he just claimed it.

The distinction that matters here isn't AI versus no AI. It's whether AI is organizing your own thinking or generating the words you then publish under your name. Different things entirely.

True. What's funny here is to imagine what happens to this Dean if AI produces something completely mad and he doesn't catch it. He's saying he's responsible but Q is whether that would stick.

Also, how is the consequence of not disclosing AI use in writing AND having AI do your writing… ANOTHER paper published??