this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2025
67 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

4274 readers
571 users here now

Which posts fit here?

Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.

Post guidelines

[Opinion] prefixOpinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.

Rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original linkPost URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacksAny kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.

Companion communities

!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip

Icon attribution | Banner attribution

If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
BrikoX@lemmy.zip
67
AI models are using material from retracted scientific papers (www.technologyreview.com)
submitted 5 days ago by misk@piefed.social to c/technology@lemmy.zip
3 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 3 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] snooggums@piefed.world 13 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Of course, because it doesn't understand anything and just spits out what it finds. Maybe it ranks certain sites as more reliable, but retractions, and where something is at in a process isn't taken into consideration.

My very first attempt to use it for work was to ask about the current mill levy exemption and it returned a value from a proposed bill that died in committee in the last session. It also presented that failed bill and then two documents with the correct value so it not only found the right documents that would easily answer the query but presented the wrong one as fact in the text vomit so anyone who didn't look at the documents would assume the text response was accurate.

It cited its sources after all!

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 2 points 4 days ago

Them using reddit posts and comments is a bigger issue.