Randomly Generated Paper Accepted to Conference 658
mldqj writes "Some students at MIT wrote a program called SCIgen - An Automatic CS Paper Generator. From their website: SCIgen is a program that generates random Computer Science research papers, including graphs, figures, and citations. What's amazing is that one of their randomly generated paper was accepted to WMSCI 2005. Now they are accepting donation to fund their trip to the conference and give a randomly generated talk."
Random Relpy (Score:3, Funny)
Patents application (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Patents application (Score:5, Funny)
I thought it would be rather interesting to create a program the randomly creates musical works. In fact, I would like it to create millions or billions of these works and to submit them for copyright
I think it would be possible to create every possible permutation of a 4 bar, or heck up to 16 bar melody, rhythm and harmony.
Then I could sue any new release by any record company 8D
Re:Patents application (Score:5, Interesting)
You would need quite a few. Just the combination of the first 8 notes is 26^7=8,031,810,176, assuming the first note's placement is irrelevant, and assuming up to an octave's jump in value either way. That is discounting rythmic variations, which would add quite a few extra combos.
The outcome space for a melody is astoundingly large.
Re:Patents application (Score:3, Interesting)
Not funny, but sad. (Score:3, Informative)
You would need quite a few. Just the combination of the first 8 notes is 26^7=8,031,810,176, assuming the first note's placement is irrelevant, and assuming up to an octave's jump in value either way. That is discounting rythmic variations, which would add quite a few extra combos.
Remember that not all the melodies on an album have to match for there to be grounds for a lawsuit. If just one of the two or three melodies in just one of the 10 or 12 songs in just one of the thousands of albums released ann
Re:Patents application (Score:4, Interesting)
Overkill. Keep it simple. (Score:5, Funny)
Billions? Why bother? Based on my listening experience, Clearchannel and the record execs seem to have built empires on no more than three variations.
So keep it simple. Who needs the Circle of Fifths, or any of those pesky black piano keys when C-G-D and some random notes/rap over a drum track (serving as the bridge) will do? Repeat "ad naseum"
1) happy, mindless dance tune by teen-star-du-jour. 90beats per minute minimum, bass drum is primary instrument. May require heavy use of DSP processing to keep singer on pitch.
2) Rap about rapper knocking other rappers off the top of the charts and or "crunk whack party", "bustin' caps" or "dubs." Word "bitches" is mandatory. Threatening violence is a plus. Don't forget shout out to imprisoned/dead homies on extended mix version.
3) Wheezy, whiny country & western tune, mandatory mentions include pickup truck, whiskey. Extra chart-topping potential for use of word "fool".
Re:Overkill. Keep it simple. (Score:4, Insightful)
Blah, blah, blah. I wish there was an Onion article like the "Area Man Constantly Mentioning He Doesn't Own A Television" one for people like you.
Guess what? Lots of music produced today is made for mass consumption. And guess what else? Even more isn't. While it might not be as popular, it's certainly available, especially online in the last ten years. Just because you're too lazy to go look for it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Hell, some people like pop music.
Past that, remember also that this is by no means a recent trend - it's existed for the entire history of pop music. As long as music's been sold for a profit, there's been someone deciding what sound to sell, and how to create the "next best thing". Your generalizations are old and tired.
Re:Overkill. Keep it simple. (Score:4, Insightful)
By any objective judgement, the top-40 (on average) is poorly performed and mass-market-sanitized versions of better (more skilled artists, better song-writing, etc). That's a fact - record executives are open about it. They "create" groups so that they don't have to deal with older and wider musicians. They have complete editorial control over sound, lyrics, and presentation. They will all, naturally, produce pap that gravitates to the exact midline of every consumer preference they can measure.
In almost every industry you see the true ground-breaking work from the independents - software, music, art. The pros have too much invested to be able to take a year off and explore some neat idea. They're going to have less of the really good products that come from a gifted person exploring their craft.
It's all fact. Does that mean you should rub people's noses in it? No, but explaining it to someone when they, just as tiresomely I assure you, drool over some pop star helps them get a little perspective. If they manage to see past the glitz of the MTV videos it could help them find music they'd really enjoy. To replace britney, buy music from a good musician and porn from a pretty girl. Once you realize that this cool sound you really like in Star X's latest song is like the sound of this genre, which you hadn't heard of, you get exposed to a new world of music.
The problem is with people who don't realize this applies to them as well, and to people who are rude about it. Just like those guys who tell everyone they don't have a TV - I don't, but I don't bring it up in conversation, nor, unless asked once it does come up, my reasons.
The benefit of registration (Score:3, Informative)
Those who use "copywritten" to mean "subject to copyright" tend to look like they haven't studied much of copyright law. The adjective is "copyrighted".
What you said is true, that copyright exists from the moment a work is fixed in a tangible medium, but in the United States. But you can't sue until you've registered the copyright in the Copyright Office, and you can't recover statutory damages or attorney's fees for infringements more than three months after first publication unless you registered the
Access and Bright Tunes v. Harrisongs (Score:3, Informative)
to win a copyright case, you have to prove *copying*. If someone else independently came up with the same tune as you, you'd be unlikely to win unless you could prove they had access to your musical work
If you've heard a musical work even once in a grocery store or on the car radio ten years ago, you are deemed to have had access to the work. And once the plaintiff demonstrates evidence of access and similarity, the judge is likely to rule that copying occurred. See Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Mus [columbia.edu]
Re:Patents application (Score:4, Informative)
The latter would probably end up looking and sounding, ironically, nearly identical to music composed using serialism, set theory, 12-tone music, etc. in which all 12 notes of the chromatic scale are arranged into a "row", which can then be used in retrograde, inversion, rotation, transposition, among others, all at the compsoer's discretion. The music of Schoenberg, Webern, Berg, and other serialists tend to be more respected among mathematicians these days.
John Cage's "randomness" stems from his intense studies of Eastern Religions, especially Zen Buddhism. For a large portion of his life, much of his music was derived, at least in part, from quasi-random decisions determined in the I Ching (The Chinese Book of Changes). Much has been written by and about John Cage on using random (aleatoric, as we musicians refer to it) elements, and of his philosophies on music in general
To give you an example of his aleatoric compositions:
4'33 - in 3 movements, the performer is instructed to sit silently at the keyboard for 4 minutes and 33 seconds, closing and opening the lid between each movement. the interpretations are too many to list here.
Imaginary Landscape No.4 - the score calls for the prescribed manipulations of knobs on 12 radios. The aural result is dependent on what happens to be on the airwaves at the instant of performance.
Other works have been "composed" by filling in notes, articulations, etc. wherever tiny imperfections appear on a sheet of manuscript paper.
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
no joke. this is not new news.. legislators have been accepting papers without review for years.
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Interesting)
Or not.
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Random slashdot story generator (Score:5, Funny)
Admit it. You would swear you're looking at a real slashdot story
not moderators, editors (Score:4, Funny)
I'd hate to be a paper referee after this. (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, and a collection of my as-yet unpublished white papers will be available soon. Cheap.
Re:I'd hate to be a paper referee after this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'd hate to be a paper referee after this. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'd hate to be a paper referee after this. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is true, but even more things are going to sound like bullshit because they are exactly that. Like Carl Sagan said, "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." Besides, many groundbreaking papers (special relativity comes to mind) are not peer reviewed anyway because there really is no one qualified to review them.
Re:I'd hate to be a paper referee after this. (Score:5, Insightful)
I strongly disagree. Good writing is good writing, no matter what the subject matter; the most revolutionary discoveries can (and should) be presented in a style that is accessible to readers knowledgeable in the field. On the other hand, buzzword-laden crap is pretty much a sure sign that the author has no meaningful contribution to make; and when buzzword-laden crap is what you get in the majority of papers published, which is pretty much where CS is right now, something is seriously wrong. The fact that randomly generated papers look so much like "real" ones is a sign of a field in serious trouble.
Re:I'd hate to be a paper referee after this. (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, if you read WMSCI's mission [iiisci.org], it looks randomly generated too:
So CS might have problems, but you cannot argue that based on WMSCI.
Re:I'd hate to be a paper referee after this. (Score:3, Funny)
Well, maybe they could use this program [slashdot.org] to filter the generated stuff out
Re:I'd hate to be a paper referee after this. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you were refereeing a paper and not at least asking that question you would have no business being a referee to begin with.
The paper in question was accepted as "non-reviewed" so obviously the reviewers did not look at it very closely. I would encourage the students to go through with their plan of giving a random talk though. I bet any future employers, postdoc supervisors, etc., who might be there will be thoroughly amused when these students make complete asses out of themselves.
Re:I'd hate to be a paper referee after this. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I'd hate to be a paper referee after this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, this kind of scam works on the reluctance of accademics to just say they don't understand something.
The blind publishing the blind. (Score:5, Insightful)
Excerpt from the submitted paper:
I've received auto-generated spam emails that read a lot like this. Nice to know the WMSCI is on their toes...but judging from the content on their home page, I'm not surprised that they consider this paper conference material.
From the WMSCI's website:
What's scary is that the second paragraph was written by humans.
(FYI, the full text of the paper in question can be found here [mit.edu], and the WMSCI website can be found here [iiisci.org].
Re:The blind publishing the blind. (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems as though corporate America consists of people trying to write as much as possible without actually saying anything. If you don't believe me, go look at the mission statement of any big company. It doesn't read like English. If it did, they might be expected to actually make something concrete.
Re:The blind publishing the blind. (Score:5, Funny)
How else do you expect them to stretch "To make money" out to fill up an entire page?
Re:The blind publishing the blind. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The blind publishing the blind. (Score:5, Funny)
"Whores for money."
Later on in the same company (after it went public) each department needed it's own mission statement. I worked in technical support at the time and our director suggested this:
"Answer phone when ring."
None of us now work there.
Re:The blind publishing the blind. (Score:5, Funny)
Hmmm
Re:The blind publishing the blind. (Score:3, Funny)
Paraphrasing:
Assistant: 'Well, Prime Minister, why don't you say that we are examining a number of different proposals, evaluating each of them for their effectiveness, expense, and practicality, and will select th
"Serving Canadians" (Score:4, Funny)
How have you been Clarisse?
Re:The blind publishing the blind. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The blind publishing the blind. (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead, the reviewer cites some statistics and basically writes, "Because I said so".
Re:The blind publishing the blind. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The blind publishing the blind. (Score:4, Insightful)
The response cited several papers showing that giving reasons for rejection is (a) less common than was implied, (b) frequently non-informative. So it was a justification for giving no justification.
I agree it was a little turgid, but unlike the paper itself, it did make sense.
obTwelveMonkeys (Score:3)
Are you also divergent, friend?
Re:The blind publishing the blind. (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally I think the problem is cultural and affects people who are intelligent and know it, but not intelligent enough that they feel they don't have to prove themselves. The more obscure your references are and the more complicated your train of thought, the smarter you must be, right?
Luckly there are folks like the Plain English Campaign [plainenglish.co.uk], " fighting for public information to be written in plain English." If you ever have to write a public document, I recommend reading through their Examples and Free Tutorials sections.
Re:The blind publishing the blind. (Score:5, Funny)
Seems to work for Dennis Miller.
Re:The blind publishing the blind. (Score:4, Interesting)
Consider these lines from their guide "How to Write Plain English."
Most experts would agree that clear writing should have an average sentence length of 15 to 20 words.
Should read:
Make your sentences about 15 to 20 words long.
And...
However, at first you may still find yourself writing the odd long sentence, especially when trying to explain a complicated point. But most long sentences can be broken up in some way.
Should read...
If you find yourself writing a long sentence to explain a complicated point, try breaking your sentence up.
Or...
If your sentence is too long, try breaking it up.
Or...
If your sentence is too long, break it up.
And...
To explain the difference between active and passive verbs, we need to look briefly at how a sentence fits together. Almost every sentence has three important parts. There are three main parts to almost every sentence:
Should be:
Well, whatever it is, it shouldn't say the same sentence twice at the end.
These are just a few examples and I'm sure one could advocate the use of the original in some situations. But read the entire article [plainenglish.co.uk] and you will see useful information and perhaps "better-than-average use of plain English" but it won't be as great as it must be for a site of this kind.
My test for well written in English is that my mind doesn't wander. I knew this wasn't great English because I sometimes found it hard to concentrate on the material. This is especially bad when I'm interested in it. IMHO, the "Elements of Style" is a better introduction to good writing.
Before you jump all over me for any badly constructed sentences in this post, remember that the standard for a "teaching plain english" article has to be much higher than a SlashDot post.
Shades of Sokal? (Score:4, Interesting)
Looks like Sokal [nyu.edu] All Over Again
Re:The blind publishing the blind. (Score:5, Informative)
Even so, before you go off the deep end on this, in my field (which is EE, not CS) it is generally accepted that the conferences are for preliminary results, and the journals are for final results. As a result, conference submissions tend to receive cursory reviews, and journal submissions receive highly rigorous reviews.
At many (but not all) conferences, authors tend to be given the benefit of the doubt, so long as the paper is not obviously ridiculous or plagiarized.
I attended a recent conference at a major university [jhu.edu] where, rumor had it, 200 papers were accepted and only four were rejected. In spite of this, I found the quality of the conference quite high. You have to go into such things realizing that some crap is going to get through the filter. However, it's nice to hear what everyone is working on, even if the ideas are not completely finished and some of the work might not be going anywhere.
You give the author the benefit of the doubt in a conference submission. The time to be rigorous is at the point of submission to a journal, and in my field, acceptance to a journal is normally crucial to having an idea accepted by the entire community.
Re:The blind publishing the blind. (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, but did you look at the paper? Figure 6 on "millennium hash tables" (which I admit shows an excellent linear relationship) plots the dependence of "seek time (cylinders)" on "latency (celcius)". Figure 3 measures "time since 1977" in teraflops. Okay--maybe reading the paper is too much to ask, but couldn't they at least have looked at the pictures?
I dare say that the paper is "obviously ridiculous".
Re:The blind publishing the blind. (Score:4, Interesting)
Out of curiosity, I did a keyword search for the strings used in these E-mails. They pull out batches of 14 words (or around 70 characters) at random from several different online book websites. An example includes US General history books [onlinebooks4free.com]
Nigerian WMSCI spam (Score:5, Funny)
My apologies to Professor Callaos if he actually is Nigerian.
Re:The blind publishing the blind. (Score:5, Funny)
TOTAL SCORE: 41 (a new world record)
A new take on "artificial intelligence" (Score:4, Funny)
The quest for a computer which has the intelligence of a human is going to succeed, and fairly soon.
It won't be accomplished by advances in AI algorithms or hardware, though.
All we have to do is wait for the average level of human intelligence to fall far enough, and the current software will have accomplished the feat!
Re:The blind publishing the blind. (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Ideas that can't be stated with mathematical precision are crap.
2. This statement is not specific enough to make a good programming specification.
3. Therefore, this statement is worthless.
What's it's username here? (Score:3, Funny)
Hmm (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Funny)
How Long Before... (Score:4, Funny)
or has it already happened? [mit.edu]
downtown Holland, Michigan is in flames as a randomly assembled protest practices their own brand of metamoderation.
the question is.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:the question is.. (Score:4, Funny)
Don't know much 'bout monkeys and typewriter, but I reckon at least 1,000,000 pickup trucks, shotguns, and miles of highway signage, at least if it's written in Braille.
You're nomenclature is confused. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:You're nomenclature is confused. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:the question is.. (Score:5, Funny)
Good thinking! I hereby propose a new unit for measuring intelligence: the MBOTY (monkey-banging-on-typewriter-years). From basic probability theory, this number is certainly always finite -- and in some cases, very much so.
Cheers,
IT
Review (Score:3, Interesting)
So... no-one organising the conference has actually read it? Anything would've gotten through in that case. Even slashdot trolls.
Re:Review (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Review (Score:3, Informative)
Indeed, even top journals in Psychology will publish papers with mistakes that the reviewers missed. Sometimes it's hard to keep up. I think they give a little slack to the established authors in the field, assuming that easy mistakes won't be made
Re:Review (Score:4, Informative)
I used to be an organic chemist, and absolutely every paper for refereed journals was reviewed by a third party in the lab to ensure the results could be duplicated. Our lab did a few, and our lab's papers were done by others.
It is expensive and time-consuming. That's why journals like JACS, JOC, Tetrahedron, etc. are respected so widely: the research in them is rock-solid and proven to work.
p
Have a randomly generated comment (Score:5, Funny)
Not surprising at all (Score:5, Informative)
At the larger conferences they make some attempt at screening out the known crackpots. The amount of effort varies.
Re:Not surprising at all (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not surprising at all (Score:4, Interesting)
On a similar note... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:On a similar note... (Score:3, Funny)
No big surprise (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, a former professor of mine once did something similar. They submitted a paper that they had written by hand, but that didn't make any sense (something about evaluating footprints in dark rooms) to a conference that was known for its crap quality, and it was accepted. This broke that conference's neck, however.
With some luck, this thing will have a similar result.
Re:No big surprise (Score:3, Interesting)
I remember that one. It was two papers, one about "radiosity in an enclosed space with no internal light sources" or some such thing. (of course, the problem is trivial). The other was about footprints and actually sounded kind of interesting, though entirely silly. Both were accepted.
Here's a link:
Fake VIDEA papers [uni-dortmund.de]
Re:No big surprise (Score:3, Insightful)
Ditto. Sometimes I'm asked to be a session organizer. Complaints to their upstream have no affect.
Re:No big surprise (Score:5, Funny)
I wonder if they'd accept a randomly generated credit card number?
Don't forget the great paper by Mazieres & Koh (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Don't forget the great paper by Mazieres & (Score:5, Funny)
The paper really needed more graphics.
KFG
I doubt they'll attend the conference now... (Score:5, Insightful)
Does anyone read these? (Score:3, Funny)
An electronics lab instructor I had in college didn't read our notebooks carefully. I answered a question with the phrase, "mumbo jumbo, dog-faced in the banana patch" and he checked it.
It wasn't reviewed (Score:5, Informative)
So, this doesn't come close to the sucess of Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity [nyu.edu] which got into a peer reviewed journal.
Re:It wasn't reviewed (Score:3, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_Affair [wikipedia.org]
It may sound like a nice prank, but it was (and still is) considered intellectually dishonest to permit the thing to go to publication, even if Social Text failed in their peer review process.
Re:It wasn't reviewed (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, yes?
What was she doing citing a paper that she didn't understand?
Yes, Sokal was being dishonest, submitting a paper that he could not in good faith claim was legitimate. On the other hand, the intellectual dishonesty also extends to Social Text, for failing in their peer review process to admit that they didn't understand the paper, and to anybody who might cite it, because they either misunderstood or misrepresented its contents--if they read it at all.
If you're not honest enough to admit that you don't understand something in academia, and you're bold enough to cite it anyway, then maybe you deserve real harm to your livelihood.
Re:It wasn't reviewed (Score:4, Insightful)
Our disciplines are so ambiguous that it's practitioners can't distinguish between fraudulent and real material. This is understood and you're wrong to test it in public.
Astonishing.
Maybe this wake up call was necessary
This "wake up call" was inevitable.
but prior to Sokol's publication there was a healthy inter disciplinary effort between the humanities and sciences.
"healthy inter disciplinary effort"... Straight out of a paper generating algorithm. Whatever respect exists between hard science and the "humanities" hasn't been fundamentally shaken, which should provide some incite into how great that level of respect was to begin with.
It isn't hard to see how this publication put a wedge between the camps.
The wedge was already there. Sokol contributed to helping us to stop pretending.
For that reason I consider it intellectually dishonest, but there is no consensus.
We should not, however, consider the "intellectual" honesty of an academic publication with standards this low? Did Social Text not purport to have academic credibility? But this is an equivalence argument.
Sokol made himself some enemies with his prank. During the time between the moments of panic you've felt when thinking about being similarly exposed, has the thought ever occurred that Sokol deserves some credit for his courage?
I didn't think so.
My complaint about slashdot (Score:5, Funny)
I, not being one of the many insolent, vicious used-car salesmen of this world, am going to make this short but sweet: In this era of rising sesquipedalianism, we must shine a light on slashdot's efforts to test another formula for silencing serious opposition. That's self-evident, and even slashdot would probably agree with me on that. Even so, I have to wonder where it got the idea that it is my view that my bitterness at it is merely the latent projection of libidinal energy stemming from self-induced anguish. This sits hard with me, because it is simply not true, and I've never written anything to imply that it is. Let's start with my claim that slashdot's inveracities are based on a technique I'm sure you've heard of. It's called "lying". I like to think I'm a reasonable person, but you just can't reason with brutal, disgusting junkies. It's been tried. They don't understand, they can't understand, they don't want to understand, and they will die without understanding why all we want is for them not to keep us perennially behind the eight ball. Now, I don't mean for that to sound pessimistic, although if you're interested in the finagling, double-dealing, chicanery, cheating, cajolery, cunning, rascality, and abject villainy by which slashdot may impose a particular curriculum, vision of history, and method of pedagogy on our school systems one of these days, then you'll want to consider the following very carefully. You'll especially want to consider that I want to give people more information about slashdot, help them digest and assimilate and understand that information, and help them draw responsible conclusions from it. Here's one conclusion I definitely hope people draw: Slashdot's callous, raving beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments) condemn innocent people to death. Slashdot then blames us for that. Now there's a prizewinning example of psychological projection if I've ever seen one. I want to make this clear, so that those who do not understand deeper messages embedded within sarcastic irony -- and you know who I'm referring to -- can process my point.
Slashdot prizes wealth and celebrity over and above decent morals and sound judgment. Now, I could go off on that point alone, but it continuously seeks adulation from its bedfellows. If you doubt this, just ask around. I once had a nightmare in which slashdot was free to make widespread accusations and insinuations without having the facts to back them up. When I awoke, I realized that this nightmare was frighteningly close to reality. For instance, slashdot's magic-bullet explanations are thoroughly otiose. Let's remember that. This is not Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, where the state would be eager to instill distrust and thereby create a need for its dictatorial views. Not yet, at least. But it argues that the most ridiculous pip-squeaks you'll ever see are easily housebroken. I wish I could suggest some incontrovertible chain of apodictic reasoning that would overcome this argument, but the best I can do is the following: It possesses no significant intellectual skills whatsoever and has no interest in erudition. Heck, it can't even spell or define "erudition", much less achieve it. Slashdot says it's going to make a big deal out of nothing faster than you can say "gastrohysterorrhaphy". Is it out of its malign mind? The answer is fairly obvious when you consider that this is kind of a touchy subject to some people. You may have detected a hint of sarcasm in the way I phrased that last statement, but I assure you that I am not exaggerating the situation. This letter has gone on far too long, in my opinion, and probably yours as well. So let me end it by saying merely that slashdot measures the value of a man by the amount of profit it can realize from him.
Automatic paper generation to save time? (Score:3, Interesting)
Now if only they could modify this thing to produce papers on selected subjects, using a writing style "learned" by analyzing some of the user's own writing, so that students won't have to waste all their time writing stupid papers, and would have time for more important matters, like actually learning the material, hanging out, drinking booze, and having unsafe sex.
EPIC (Score:5, Interesting)
Random Complaints (Score:4, Interesting)
This post was brought to you by a shameless plug [blogspot.com].
Profit Motive (Score:5, Informative)
The deal is, in an effort to get tenure or grants in a publish-or-perish world, mediocre researchers submit to these things. They are published if and only if they pay the registration fee. For this particular conference, the fee is a mere $US 390.
And there are no quantity discounts. If you have n papers you pay n times the fee.
It got in... as a "non-reviewed paper"... Sokal (Score:3, Informative)
Alan Sokal did better back then, when the NY-based physicist wrote up an article that got published in a journal (Social Text, IIRC) - journals are supposed to be rather strict in what they accept.
The nice thing here is that they wrote a probably neat NLG (natural language generation) system to write the paper - it seems to be more practical than previous multimodal NLG systems that are much more domain/application-dependent, but generate stuff that makes sense.
Looking forward to that random talk...
pit this against the essay autograder (Score:5, Funny)
Conferences that will accept anything. (Score:3, Funny)
Based on their CV? (Score:3, Insightful)
" Acceptance decisions related to the submitted papers will be based on their respective content review and/or on the respective author's CV.
"
Randomly generated paper accepted (Score:5, Funny)
I hate to admit it, but I fell for it (Score:5, Funny)
By then I forgot all about it being randomly generated. I was trying to read it and I asked myself, "Why the fuck did I open this link, it makes no sense?!" A couple seconds later I remembered.
It's brilliant. I learned something! (Score:3, Funny)
We have taken great pains to describe out evaluation setup; now, the payoff, is to discuss our results. We these considerations in mind, we ran four novel experiments: (1) we ran massive multiplayer online role-playing games on 13 nodes spread throughout the Planetlab network, and compared them against multi-processors running locally; (2) we measured database and WHOIS throughput on our human test subjects; (3) we ran SMPs on 42 nodes spread throughout the Internet-2 network, and compared them against fiber-optic cables running locally; and (4) we compared expected interrupt rate on the GNU/Hurd, FreeBSD and L4 operating systems. We discarded the results of some earlier experiments, notably when we measured database and RAID array latency on our network.
Now for the climactic analysis of the second half of our experiments. Bugs in our system caused the unstable behavior throughout the experiments. Similarly, the many discontinuities in the graphs point to amplified energy introduced with our hardware upgrades. We scarcely anticipated how accurate our results were in this phase of the evaluation.
I urge you to contribute. (Score:5, Funny)
I'm brilliant! (Score:5, Funny)
Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux
To cancel it out, I also wrote one that guarantees -5 Flamebait, too:
Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft
Judging from the description of the WMSCI 2005... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Similar to the Pomo Generator (Score:4, Funny)
The reason why you can't tell how many such essays you've had to read is, of course, that you've had to read exactly none, and it would totally spoil your joke if you told us.
So basically, you're being a pretentious fucktard by trying to fool people into believing you're smart enough to discover, all by your own hard work, that postmodernism is a bunch of meaningless pseudo-randomly generated junk. It probably is, for the most part, but you don't know anything about it.