Currently really fired up because someone on FreeSound.org listed a song as #CC0, but is demanding #attribution in the #comments and claiming #copyright on #YouTube videos. I think he just doesn't speak English well and doesn't know the difference between CC0 and CC-BY. But man am I aggravated by the whole thing.
New study: "The practice of automatically assigning senior members of departments as co-authors on all submitted manuscripts may be common in the health sciences…Those admitting to this practice find[] it unjustified in most cases." https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-55966-x
Got caught by confirmation bias again. Not that what I boosted (and then unboosted) isn't true per se....it's just that when it occurred to me that it might not be, it wasn't as easy to dis/prove as I'd thought. Which is reason enough not to boost it.
It's a bad habit. Confirmation bias is really helpful in getting folks to boost things without checking them out first.
It's also an example where not crediting photojournalists slows down checking things out. #Attribution
I'm tired of sitting through #science talks where all plots are properly credited but artist's impressions and photographs aren't.
As a researcher and astrophotographer who works with super talented artists, this attitude really bothers me.
You study galaxies at the dawn of time. You look for biomarkers in the atmospheres of distant planets. You can most definitely find who made that cool image you just pasted in your slides.
As someone who started in the arts and had an earful of people stealing my work and telling me it wasn't worth anything anyway (despite them wanting to use it), I have been disappointed at how so many scientists perpetuate this (now that I'm a Masters student in STEM and able to see).
Esp those cool with using AI that stole from artists to generate visuals for their slides, blog, etc.
I've reached the stage of my Mastodon life where I'm just starting to block accounts that accrue followers through reposting other people's artwork, without attribution/link, and that simply rehash whatever's viral on Reddit, Facebook, etc. No matter how many folks I know follow them.
I want to see the folks that are creating original cool stuff. And those who are citing/linking to cool stuff with attribution. (And the folks who do both.)
Speaking of the damage done by lack of #attribution, I have not been able to find irrefutable credit for this brilliant editorial cartoon. TinEye & Google Images both turn up the copious people who post without credit, which buried the actual credit in search results.
I've searched on what appears to be a signature and looking at the styles, they seem a likely match. Jota A. Costa. Really one of the most pithy editorial cartoons I've seen about anthropogenic climate change & pollution.
Just because #attribution is hard, it doesn’t equal ”useless”.
”One group member pointed out that “attribution” for a dataset might result in a 300-million page PDF. “Completely useless. It would compress well, because most of it would be redundant.””
Yeah. Most, but not all, and you can’t know which because you can’t figure our whose #work is going to get #stolen in advance.
@osi Ps. If anybody is listening, please read my blog about ”a middle way”. That we must do not because it’s easy but because it’s hard. Otherwise intellectual property as an incentive for encouraging innovation is done for.
Is #cybersecurity the only field where a crime can take place, possibly causing huge monetary or other damage, and people with some sort of "authority" will still claim "#attribution doesn't matter"?
For the evening crowd
Is it time for a change..? New positions advertised, full time and permanent, working right at the cutting edge of both basic climate and ice sheet research, and importantly, climate services, including drought, #Attribution + #SeaLevelRise.
"For the moment, we recommend that if #LLMs are used to write scholarly reviews, reviewers should disclose their use and accept full responsibility for their reports’ accuracy, tone, reasoning and originality."
PS: "For the moment" these tools can help reviewers string words together, not judge quality. We have good reasons to seek evaluative comments from human experts.
Update. I acknowledge that there's no bright line between using these tools to polish one's language and using them to shape one's judgments of quality. I also ack that these tools are steadily getting better at "knowing the field". That's why this is a hard problem.