The co-chairs have also asked the government to "declare its willingness to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights and repeal the Human Rights Act"
As a scientist I can say this is the funniest thing to happen to science in years. The other AI-generated images are also hilarious because they have amazing insights into things like the JAK -> JAK -> JAK-> JAK -> JAK pathway and other total gibberish.
It's news because the President of the United States is saying it out loud. World leaders don't get to speak like you and I, diplomacy is a thing, words have strong and definite meanings on the geopolitical stage. Here Biden said, "fuck Putin", loud and clear.
In May 2015, Frontiers Media removed the entire editorial boards of Frontiers in Medicine and Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine after editors complained that Frontiers Media staff were "interfering with editorial decisions and violating core principles of medical publishing". In total 31 editors were removed. Following this incident, Nature Publishing Group ended its collaboration with Frontiers with the intent "never to mention again that Nature Publishing Group has some kind of involvement in Frontiers."[14]
In June 2015, Retraction Watch referred to the publisher as one with "a history of badly handled and controversial retractions and publishing decisions".[40]
According to researchers referenced in a 2015 blog post quoted by Allison and James Kaufman in the 2018 book Pseudoscience: The Conspiracy Against Science, "Frontiers has used an in-house journals management software that does not give reviewers the option to recommend the rejection of manuscripts" and the "system is setup to make it almost impossible to reject papers".[41] However, as of 2022, Frontiers maintains that reviewers are given the option to reject papers with specific recommendations.[42]
In 2017, further editors were removed, allegedly for their rejection rate being high.[citation needed] In December 2017, Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky of Retraction Watch wrote in the magazine Nautilus that the acceptance rate of manuscripts in Frontiers journals was reported to be near 90%.[43]
I guess having ideas about what could be done to address this problem is better than nothing. None of these organizations have demonstrated the capability to actually prevent abuse of AI and proliferation of disinformation.
Aka, if we pretend to vaguely do something with no consequences for not following through, we can argue that we're responsive and self-regulating, and hopefully avoid real regulation with teeth.
IMO branding all this stuff as AI is an issue, this stuff is just chatbots and image generators still at this point. None of it is actually "intelligence" in a sense. It's like saying autocorrect on your phone is AI.
All this random generated "gibberish" should be watermarked digitally where it's embedded in the image. This way platforms can detect and alert the image is not verified/real. Like this photo I just took.
Watermarking is a flawed argument and would only serve the incumbent corporations who have products, fucking over any open source projects or researchers.
I am 100% sure that their measures will not only be at best marginally effective, but also that they’ll drop the measures at some point because “they’re unprofitable”.
News
Oldest