The whole âoeitâ(TM)s super dangerousâ thing served two purposes. First, it hyped the product. It must be earth shattering if itâ(TM)s super dangerous. Second, it was a naked play for government regulation to protect them from competition.

The irony of course is that they played up Skynet, the real societal danger was never going be stopped through regulation. The danger I speak of is that of generated content being taken as truth, whether itâ(TM)s propaganda or just lazy danger like putting glue on pizzas or misidentifying mushrooms.

But of course theyâ(TM)re not concerned with that. That makes money, and anyway, it will get better⦠eventually.

Itâ(TM)s âoequid pro quoâ not âoequid pre quoâ. ;)
If you get the money after the act, then itâ(TM)s not a bribe, but merely a thank you gift!

So does this mean that pressing play on my keyboard will now launch Spotify instead of Apple Music, or what?

To some degree. When Wiley (old, big publisher) bought Hindawi (young, fast-growing upstart Open Access publisher), they quickly discovered that the entire publishing house was infiltrated by paper mills. They retracted thousands of papers, and closed many journals. However, some of their own journals are also heavily infiltrated by paper mills, and those had far fewer retractions.

Conversely, another young upstart, MDPI, has very few retractions even though they also have a high number of paper mill productions, including some that they know about very well and have "investigated".

Wiley is obviously a much more serious publisher than MDPI, albeit more hesitant to clean their old house than the newer that they bought.

Computer science, by the way, has a far higher rate of retractions for academic misconduct than other disciplines, and it's not because it's so easily replicated, it's because it's rampant with fraud. I'll give you an example of ridiculous verbiage that somehow stays in the academic literature thanks to the non-efforts of IEEE and an academic community that will publish anything but read nothing. You don't need a replication study to see that this isn't a serious academic work. It's most likely a patchwork of plagiarised text that's been fed through some paraphrasing filters to avoid automatic detection.

But yeah, psychology is surely not serious and computer science is very smart.

Fair use is for everyone.

This really isnâ(TM)t that hard. Fair use is not â" nor was it ever intended to be â" a backdoor âoepay what you can affordâ.

Undoubtedly there are many in the antigenai and antioligarch crowd are going to be cheering this ruling, but I canâ(TM)t help but think this is going to absolutely gut fair use and just make rent seeking by megacorps become even more pervasive.

Information wants to be free, and we scraping is not a crime.

The title of the story is "GPT-Fabricated Scientific Papers Found on Google Scholar by Misinformation Researchers", you blithering imbecile. It's the starting point of the discussion.

Entirely untrue. The people dealing in fabricated papers are professionals. You can't just submit a generated paper to a journal, not even one published by MDPI, Frontiers or IEEE, and expect to have it published. You need to have friendly peer reviewers, i.e. a network of other crooks, preferably ones with credible credentials. And of course, these people will want something in return, perhaps citations to their own rubbish papers as much as money. And citations get you promoted, or a new job.

There are plenty of scam artists working as full professors, and they can do this because:
1) Publish and perish means no one has time to actually read their work, as they are too busy writing.
2) As productive and highly-cited researchers, they are particularly valuable to their institutions (as long as no one reads their work).
3) Reporting them is entirely ineffective. Publishers will ignore you, also see 2).

Oh, and did I mention that these guys cite each other? That means that a journal with a medium to strong papermill infestation will have a higher impact factor than one with editorial oversight. For instance, the most highly cited paper in IEEE Sensors Journal the last few years is obviously part of such a citation cartel. Removing the papermill presence would ruin their "impact" and hurt their credibility.

Years ago, my parents that live in rural Illinois had Verizon landline service. Verizon wanted to get out of the rural landline business and sold it to Frontier. Frontier at the time boasted about their rural service. Now Verizon has bought Frontier.

This doesnâ(TM)t exactly bode well for rural landlines.

There is the Retraction Watch Database, which is directly supported by reference managers Zotero and EndNote. Whenever a reference in your library is retracted and shows up in the database (it's not complete), the reference manager notifies you.

If you're a researcher and aren't using a reference manager, you're probably not very good at your job.

Not really. Not at all, actually. There are still plenty of subscription journals, and many of them have the same problem with paper mills as open access journals have. They are also often as unwilling to fix their problems.

The problem is publish or perish – you need to publish to further your career, no matter how weak your findings are. Your quality as a researcher is usually evaluated on output, both in volume and in the supposed quality of the journals you publish in (ranked by the rate of citations to the papers published in the journals), and in some cases also on how many citations your publications have attained.

Paper mills take care of having your name put on publications. Then they publish other works citing your paper. Now you're a cited author! And also, the journal gets more citations, elevating it in the rankings (yes, this is how fucked things are). Some papers are pure gibberish: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.3390%2Fs22166...

So it was faster because they hedged and used async to scan? What does that have to do with WebAssembly?

And when these inputs are ignored?

You can't make blanket statements about how some group "should" behave, when you don't know what's going on.

To follow up on your concerns about " damaging your employer's reputation" and "disrupting your colleagues". If this is disrupting them, then they are bad at their jobs and should be fired. If someone's reputation is being damaged by simpily having their actions known, then that person shouldn't be doing things that damage their reputation. The alternative is "Snitches get stitches."

You aren't being paid to post opinions on social media either, so shut your mouth and know your role. Be drone.

That's how it works right?

I'm not sure you can really teach someone programming. If someone really want's to learn how to code, they can just do it on their own. Download the JRE and just figure things out little-by-little. They have to want to learn it. Read stuff on the Web. And actually yes, "Google it". Last I checked, they don't teach programming in College. If you're a compsci major, you're just expected to know how to code already. So every serious coder is pretty much self-taught. Yeah, it might be nice to have some place to go and ask questions but you can't make programmers like you're making pizzas. Did these Mined Minds people really "promise" anything?