Scientists aghast at bizarre AI rat with huge genitals in peer-reviewed article
arstechnica.com
It's unclear how such egregiously bad images made it through peer-review.

Scientists aghast at bizarre AI rat with huge genitals in peer-reviewed article | It’s unclear how such egregiously bad images made it through peer-review.::It’s unclear how such egregiously bad images made it through peer-review.

  • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.worldEnglish
    27·
    9 months ago

    to have a mechanism by which to say "this was wrong. we fucked up.

    Yes. But then you do not delete anything. You ADD this statement and leave the original stuff untouched, so that everybody can see afterwards what has been going on.

    (Unless you want to become a politician)

    • Alien Nathan EdwardEnglish
      15·
      9 months ago

      funny, that’s exactly what a retraction is. you don’t destroy the original stuff, you just publish a statement that says “Hey, that stuff? it’s no good.” individual journals have their own policies, of course, but that’s the template from which reputable journals build their policies. so the problem you’re trying to fix simply doesn’t exist.