Hacker News Reader

Comment by m_rpn | Hacker News Reader

The shame is not that he was so imbecile to not have appropriate backups, it is that he is basically defrauding his students, his colleagues, and the academic community by nonchalantly admitting that a big portion of his work was ai-based. Did his students consent to have their homework and exams fed to ai? Are his colleagues happy to know that probably most of the data in their co-authored studies where probably spat out by ai? Do you people understand the situation?

View on HN

> The shame is not that much that he was so imbecile to not have appropriate backups

These comments vehemently disagree:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46726570

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46777039

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46777123

> ... (the rest) ...

It's not that I don't see or even agree with concerns around the misuse and defrauding angle to this, it's that it's blatantly clear to me that's not why the many snarky comments are so snarky. It's also not as if I was magically immune to such behavioral reflexes either, it's really just regrettable.

Though I will say, it's also pretty clear to me that many taking issue with the misuse angle do not seem to think that any amount or manner of AI use can be responsible or acceptable, rendering all use of it misuse - that is not something agree with.

It seems you are desperately trying to make a strawman without any sensible argument, i don't personally think it is "snarky" to call things as they are, plain and simple, you, as supposed expert and professional academic, post a blog on Nature crying that "ai stole my homework", it's only natural you get the ridicule you deserve, it's the bare minimum, he should be investigated by the institution he works for.

A reasonable amount of AI use is certainly acceptable, where "reasonable" depends on the situation, for any academic related job this amount should be close to zero, and no material produced by any student/grad/researcher/professor should be fed to third party LLM models without explicit consent, otherwise what even is the point? Regurgitating slop is not academic work.

Sorry to hear that's how my comments seem to you; I can assure I put plenty of sense into them, although I cannot find that sense on your behalf.

If you think considering others to be desperate, senseless, and erroneously reasoning without any good reason improves your understanding of them, and that snarky commentary magically ceases to be or is all-okay because it describes something you find a big truth, that's on you. Gonna have to agree to disagree on that one.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com