Post

It's by definition lazy, derivative, stolen hack work. How is that "peer" review?

What a load of horseshit.

Nobody asked for this, nobody wants this. The function of peer review is to get thoughtful opinions from people with depth of knowledge, not nonsense from clippy

How does “fuck that” sound?

Utterly ridiculous. If you want us to review a manuscript, it is because we understand the subject. What is the point in using a crappy LLM to make that more difficult. If this comes in, I stop reviewing for Springer journals.

Can we please outsource the tedium and keep the intellectually interesting bits? The bits where we engage with one another as thinkers and curious humans?

Hi this is the Springer Reader2 bot.

Look, we get it. You've spent a fortune on buying these Tulips that no-one wants so now you're trying to force us to buy the Tulips. I ain't buying your Tulips man, and I won't work with anyone who does.

We wouldn’t need this support if you weren’t both complicit in flooding my inbox with a dozen requests to review fake manuscripts a day, so thanks a pantload

You guys don't pay reviewers as it is. It's free labour. Why the hell are you trying to replace them with clankers. Is 40% profit margin not enough to just leave it alone

this thread is full of people who, despite going on and on about human readers being superior to machine readers, seem to be unable to understand what they're reading here

it can't. Hope this helps. If you are interested in these questions you can find a wide range of mathmatical papers about the functionality and capabilities of Machine Learning and Large Language Models freely accesible on scihub or other ethical scientific publishing platforms of your choice.

I wish this were a bit

How much is Google paying you?

"Rejected: A cross reference with a reddit comment conflicted with results."

I mean, if the point is that people don’t have time for peer review, then stop doing peer review in your journals (or change it). Don’t introduce a coin flip for publication and don’t encourage reviewers to do a bad (or, an even worse) job!

That’s a no from me, thanks.

😬

Note to myself: auto-decline future review request from @springernature.com

"AI" could stop existing as the technofascist project that it is, that would help. And so should you, supporting this. Cease.

delete your account.

These are not my peers

It does the dishes, laundry, and grabs the groceries while researchers read and analyze the papers? That's what would help them focus, right? Cutting out other distractions so scientists can do the work of peer review, right?

Fuck you, actually? What the hell are you doing?

:))

Pathetic. This is precisely the wrong approach.

It can't.

Money More Money All the Money

oh feck off

Fuck Springer and fuck AI. It's unnecessary and unwanted.

It can't. Cease and desist.

“On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.” ― Charles Babbage

"For us, innovation and trust have to go hand in hand." Ah yes, peer review, that famous trust-based exercise.

What are we doing here folks? JFC come on.

Not sure I'll be trusting Springer journal articles anymore...

How can you trust a system that only produces a rehashing of whatever Google has decided to feed into its probability machine? FFS 🤬

Don't feed other people's intellectual property into the steal machine to be trained. Especially before it's even published!

How about "fuck off"?

SO, let me get this straight: researchers spend <how> long, working on a paper, that you're now openly saying no-one will read? Honestly, the levels of stupid, and the absence of respect, decency, and good ol' common sense, are equalled only by the insult.

Why not listen to academics, who think that this is a terrible idea?

Fuck this shit...it's not peer reviewed this way, skimming through means you miss something. Go to hell and take your AI garbage with you

Are you really suggesting that reviewers should not read articles under consideration? Are authors happy with that?

I'm a conscientious objector to all AI and AGI.

Peer review is about the application of wisdom. AI hasn't even achieved intelligence.

This is a terrible idea. Peer review is central to process of reaching scientific consensus and cannot be farmed out to a bot without compromising rigour. As an author, reviewer and editor it undermines my confidence in the whole review process.

Oh, stop being silly.

if you do this I will never review another article of yours for as long as I live

Fucc off. F AI.

So are you finally going to pay reviewers? If AI autocomplete bots are worth trillions, real expertise should have some value.

Was this "[..]." you guys or your AI?

Exactly. They are using an AI (that doesn't understand it) to tell the reviewer (who does) what parts to review. I half checked the date to see if it was April 1st...

Terrible.

Resign.

Delete this. Your promoting people replacing doing the job of reviewing with text generator slop devalues your journals. It also insults all of the authors of papers submitted to them by treating their work as not worth actually reading.