Proziam · HackerTrans

6 months agodiscuss

This is a pretty common claim, but in the US you can buy similarly 'pure' beef and it's still cheaper. I prefer the EU approach for general food production, requiring every stage of the process be clean enough that you don't need to chlorinate chicken, for example. But, Americans do have access to the same quality food at much lower prices (and they earn more besides).

Proziam

6 months agodiscuss

Thank you for the comment!

I think the negative reaction people have comes from fear of punishment for human error, but fraud (meaning the real legal term, not colloquially) requires knowledge and intent.

That legal standard means that the risk of ruinous consequences for a 'lazy kid' who took a foolish shortcut is very low. It also requires that a prosecutor look at the circumstances and come to the conclusion that they can meet this standard in a courtroom. The bar is pretty high.

That said, it's very important to note that fraud has a pretty high rearrest (not just did it, but got arrested for it) rate between 35-50%. So when it gets to the point that someone has taken that step, a slap on the wrist simply isn't going to work. Ultimately, when that happens every piece of work they've touched, and every piece of work that depended on their work, gets called into question. The dependency graph affected by a single fraudster can be enormous.

Proziam

6 months agodiscuss

Non-academics can definitely offer valid critiques of academia.

You don't need to be in academia to understand that scientific progress depends on trust. If you don't trust the results people are publishing, you can't then build upon them. Reproducibility has been a known issue for a long time[0], and is widely agreed upon to be a 'crisis' by academics[1].

The advent of an easier way to publish correct-looking papers, or to plagiarize and synthesize other works without actually validating anything is only going to further diminish trust.

[0] https://www.nature.com/articles/533452a#citeas

[1] https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/jou...

Proziam

6 months agodiscuss

I've lived in Sweden, Germany, and the United States. Just being honest about my experience here, but the cheap stuff (like potatoes) are cheaper in the EU but the expensive stuff (like beef[0]) are more expensive.

[0] https://www.globalproductprices.com/rankings/beef_price/

Proziam

6 months agodiscuss

Fraud implies intent, either intent to deceive or intentionally negligent.

If you're taking public funds (directly or otherwise) with the intent to either:

A) Do little to no real work, and pass of the work of an AI as being your own work, or

B) Knowingly publish falsified data

Then you are, without a single shred of doubt, in criminal fraud territory. Further, the structural damage you inflict when you do the above is orders of magnitude greater than the initial fraud itself. That is a matter for civil courts ("Our company based on development on X fraudulent data, it cost us Y in damages").

Whether or not charges are pressed is going to happen way after all the internal reviews have demonstrated the person being charged has gone beyond the "honest mistake" threshold. It's like Walmart not bothering to call the cops until you're into felony territory, there's no point in doing so.

Proziam

6 months agodiscuss

Stealing more than a few thousand dollars is a felony, and felonies are handled in criminal court, not civil.

EDIT - The threshold amount varies. Sometimes it's as low as a few hundred dollars. However, the point stands on its own, because there's no universe where the sum in question is in misdemeanor territory.

Proziam

6 months agodiscuss

If I steal hundreds of thousands of dollars (salary, plus research grants and other funds) and produce fake output, what do you think is appropriate?

To me, it's no different than stealing a car or tricking an old lady into handing over her fidelity account. You are stealing, and society says stealing is a criminal act.

Proziam

6 months agodiscuss

False equivalence. This isn't about "using AI" it's about having an AI pretend to do your job.

What people are pissed about is the fact their tax dollars fund fake research. It's just fraud, pure and simple. And fraud should be punished brutally, especially in these cases, because the long tail of negative effects produces enormous damage.

Proziam

6 months agodiscuss

All 3 of these should be categorized as fraud, and punished criminally.

Proziam

5 years agodiscuss

Every company begins somewhere. If you want new companies to make it, allowing for there to continue to be 'plenty of opportunities' in the future, then accepting that there are times when repairing the ~sins~ necessities of the past is reasonable.

Proziam

6 years agodiscuss

So, Google (And others) are evil, but because customers don't value privacy until it's too late, it's okay to abuse them for profit?

You aren't ethical if you only act ethically when you are forced to.

Proziam

7 years agodiscuss

I'm on call 24/7. It's fairly normal to wake up at 2 am because there's a pressing situation and a client is in need. That said, I actively chose this situation for myself and find it to be pretty rewarding. Of course, it requires some planning and coordination, so my team divvied up our responsibilities accordingly to ensure that there are always resources available for taking meetings on a normal schedule.

It's probably worth noting, we work with large brands and marketing agencies from all around the world and are often called upon to 'save the day' once someone's plans have fallen through. As a result, time is usually the one thing our clients don't have enough of and being able to solve their problems ASAP is what allows our clients to get back to normal operation. Given that, it's easy for me to pick up the phone at 2 am because I know that whoever is calling me is going to be having a worse time than I am.

comments