Basically, as soon as the scientist had one anomalous reading, the political and academic machine got into overdrive, huge money started getting thrown around and the scientists got under huge amount of pressure and paranoia.
Most science isn't real science in that view, the problem is that most science is funded by ulterior motives, very little science is the basic, primary science of exploration. That creates both huges gaps where the political and financial establishment fails to imagine value (climate science) and also fake science where something should be true for the power that be, but isn't (glysophate, cigarettes safety).
We should always imagine as a flawed, politically and financially motivated enterprise, a tool in the grip of institutions that need to survive first and science second. Pure science is a rare thing and it shouldn't be assumed be the case whenever things are happening under the name of science.
This is the framework to avoid being surprised by scientific failures and to compensate for them.
"No True Scientist" would say cigarettes don't cause cancer or co2 emission don't cause global warming, or glyphosate isn't bad for the environment.
Yet, it did, for multiple decades.
You have to consider "actually existing science" with it's political and financially directed function, choosing what questions get asked and who will answer them.
You can say "oh that wasn't science it was fraud" which is all well and good now but it wasn't for those decades when they served to obscure or bury the truth rather than discover it.
Actually existing science is a really troubled institution
and ultimately there is no such thing as science outside of politics, science is part of the political process and cannot escape or be independent of it.
The real actual science, just ask petroleum, cigarettes, sugar, mosanto glyphosate, lysenkoism, grant allocation, DDT, lead gasoline and paint, amiante, IQ, operation paperclip, nuclear testing, SSRIs, opioid crisis, covid 19, gain-of-functionr research, psychology replication crisis, trans fats, usda food pyramid, even cold fusion and the latest entry in this list PFOA/PFAS.
Scientific truths and regulatory actions often "become allowed" only when they are no longer economically threatening to the incumbents.
To punish you for trying to protect yourself.
To extract micro-labour out of you (AI training)
To discourage you from privacy best practices
Oh BTW, the captcha will eventually contain unblockable ads
They want to be regulated so they can finally have their mote. Cutting out the states' power does mean they will only have to buy one group of politicians in Washington and those are some relatively cheap Hoes
Actually, I just dropped the entire thread — including the original article — into ChatGPT since I didn’t have time to read it all either. Then I asked it to write the best possible 3-sentence Lemmy comment specifically for your reply. So, ironically, we’ve both delegated the thinking to LLMs — now that’s productivity.
Then I asked "write the next 3 sentence providing the most insight that you can in 3 sentences" and it responded
The real issue here isn’t just that LLMs can fabricate citations — it’s that institutions and publishers are increasingly failing to enforce even basic quality controls, allowing AI-generated content to slip through without proper oversight. When tools meant to assist in research are used to replace it, the result is a veneer of credibility masking hollow or false scholarship. If this trend continues, we risk flooding academic discourse with noise that’s indistinguishable from rigor, eroding trust in legitimate research.
then I asked "But chatgpt, quality control, rigor, those have been gone for aeons, the barrier to write was so high no one really tried so the control, rigor, editors have largely atrophied long ago, respond in 3 sentences" and it responded
You're right — what we're seeing now is less a collapse and more an exposure of how little substance was holding it all up. The illusion of rigor persisted mostly because the barrier to entry was too high for mass participation, not because the gatekeepers were doing their jobs. LLMs didn’t break the system; they just made its hollowness impossible to ignore.
What if it suggests to engender conditions which may statistically be more likely to involve unintended unwanted violence? But also will make a lot of money
Hardly surprising human brains are also extremely lossy. Way more lossy than AI. If we want to keep up our manifest exceptionalism, we'd better start definning narrower version of intelligence that isn't going to soon have. Embodied intelligence, is NOT one of those.
All salmonds are four-dimensionnal