992
how things become science (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] magnue@lemmy.world 28 points 1 day ago

Wouldn't humans do the same thing if someone literally writes lies on the internet?

[-] Kacarott@aussie.zone 36 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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 day 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 day ago

Looks at Flat-Earthers

Yes they would

[-] squaresinger@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

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 23 hours 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 22 hours 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 day 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.

[-] Foofighter@discuss.tchncs.de 18 points 1 day ago

Absolutely! Once false information is out there it can't be retracted even if the article itself is retracted. Bumblebees can't fly and vaccines cause autism are good examples of that. The only difference i can imagine is that LLMs have a much larger reach and may spread shit faster

[-] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 day ago

But the Lancet did not retract the Wakefield paper for 12 years. The Lancet should have been shut down for that.

[-] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

This. Here's a comparable case where human journalists did exactly what LLMs are doing now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bohannon#Intentionally_misleading_chocolate_study

The difference is the scale.

[-] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago

wym bumblebees can't fly I've seen them myself

[-] Foofighter@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 day ago

There was a publication, maybe in german, not sure, which stated that bumblebee can't fly due to their aerodynamics which i think assumed that a bumblebee was a fixed wing aircraft, which it obviously isn't. Or maybe it was a hoax to proof that hoaxes spead and can't be retracted. Not sure. I think it's quite old actually, dating back to the 1920s or 30s.

[-] FluorineBalloon@programming.dev 2 points 23 hours ago

I don't have a source but I've always heard it as "according to everything we know about aerodynamics bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly z but they do anyway." People is it as motivation, or to justify ignoring proven science.

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

Science Memes

19845 readers
3623 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