this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2026
1019 points (99.1% liked)

Science Memes

19933 readers
2232 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Kacarott@aussie.zone 36 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

If it were convincing lies made to deceive, then sure. But in this case the papers were deliberately made to be immediately obviously fake, to anyone actually reading them.

So I guess the question would be "would humans do the same thing if someone literally writes obvious jokes on the internet?"

[–] HylicManoeuvre@mander.xyz 12 points 1 week ago

More shockingly, three Indian researchers published a research paper that cited the preprint on the fake disease in Cureus, a peer-reviewed journal published by Springer. It was subsequently retracted.

lol

[–] Honytawk@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 week ago

Looks at Flat-Earthers

Yes they would

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bohannon#Intentionally_misleading_chocolate_study

Yes, people would exactly do the same, because nobody reads anything but the headline of a paper. Even journalists don't.

AI didn't invent the problem, but it put the problem on steroids.

[–] ExperiencedWinter@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Even journalists don't

Not sure what point your making here, I wouldn't expect most journalists to be great at reading the details of papers like this...

[–] Test_Tickles@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

Research and fact checking is what separates journalists from hacks.
"Journalist" implies factual information, not science fiction. If someone writes a "news" story about the magic land of Xanth because they can't tell the difference between a Piers Anthony novel and a scientific study it's not Piers Anthony's fault for being too "tricky".

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Vetting sources is the one thing we need journalists for. If they don't vet their sources, their work is without merit.

Reading at least the methodology section of a paper and googling if the researchers and the institute exists, is the bare minimum of what a decent journalist should do.

If they can't do that, then there's no advantage of a journalist over some random person posting on Facebook. Even Youtubers usually vet their sources better.

[–] Napster153@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

That's how we ended up with modern day anti-vaxxers but at least with humans you can strangle the dude responsible. LLMs function like modern idols that the makers use to get away with.