Science

xocetaceans

(4,197 posts)

1. At least, he did not try to compute the "vile true blunder" for anything: that calculation can be evil.

Thu Apr 24, 2025, 07:57 PM

Apr 24

It would be interesting to see if any of his plots sport "blunder bars"...

Upon looking (in a very cursory manner...still seemingly more deeply than Awasthi did) at Awasthi's paper to see about the much-hoped presence of "blunder bars", another humorous contribution to the paper's (seemingly high) "blunder rate" is the citation in this shortly following passage. (Someone should let the unfortunate Simon Baker know that apparently he is to be cited in the literature as "Bread Cook".)

Leveraging GANs For Active Appearance
Models Optimized Model Fitting
Anurag Awasthi
Google, USA
anuragaw@google.com

...

Fitting AAMs includes taking care of a non-straight [sic: nonlinear?] opti-
mization issue, where the objective is to limit (or expand) a
worldwide mistake [sic: global error?] (or closeness) measure between the infor-
mation picture and the underlying model occurrence.

...

Enhancement-based techniques, presented by Matthews and
Bread Cook [2], utilize Compositional Angle Drop (CGD)
calculations to scientifically limit the blunder measure.

...

REFERENCES

...

[2] I. Matthews and S. Baker, “Active appearance mod-
els revisited,” International Journal of Computer Vision
(IJCV), 2004.

...

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2501.11218v1

Does this count as (smart-)phoning in one's research? The AI-generated text is so glaringly bad that it seems unlikely that one could read it while being conversant with the technical jargon of the field and come away with anything other than the idea that such a paper is not even close to being publishable, even as a preprint. As noted above, citing a man named Baker as Bread Cook is purely risible.

Lastly, the commentary on PubPeer is very interesting to read:

https://pubpeer.com/publications/F19A87982B29CB5C819040BFD7E8EA

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

3 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

erronis highplainsdem NNadir

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

'Squared blunder': Google engineer withdraws preprint after getting called out for using AI [View all] erronis Apr 24 OP

At least, he did not try to compute the "vile true blunder" for anything: that calculation can be evil. xocetaceans Apr 24 #1

Paper mill quality in - review mill quality out. Nice comment! erronis Apr 24 #2

It is interesting to read from the paper and try to guess what the AI was substituting into the text. xocetaceans Apr 24 #4

More pollution of our information ecosystem. Even if all the twits using generative AI stopped now, highplainsdem Apr 24 #3

I agree. n/t xocetaceans Apr 24 #5

I love retraction watch. The scientists in the lab where my wife works really appreciated her turning them on to it. NNadir Apr 25 #6