This was published on nature.com.

It looks like the whole article was AI generated.Here are responses from pubpeer.

I never thought I’d see professionals just kind of collectively give up on putting effort into things. Maybe by “fexcectorn” and “frymbial” levels are abnormal?

    • This new diagram generation really bothers me. We already have an epidemic of people using bad or unnecessary diagrams to make their work seem more credible than it is. People have already lost the concept of graphic aides. With AI slop it just going to go further and people can easily put any nonsense into a diagram. The idea being that if you can make it into a diagram then it’s meaningful. The abuse is now going to be tenfold.

    • Blakey [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      “nature scientific reports” published it. It’s a nature publication but it’s really not the same as being published in the journal “nature”. Still fucking disturbing but they didn’t actually get this shite into one of the most trusted journals in all of academia.