MIT Asks arXiv To Take Down Preprint Paper On AI and Scientific Discovery 15
MIT has formally requested the withdrawal of a preprint paper on AI and scientific discovery due to serious concerns about the integrity and validity of its data and findings. It didn't provide specific details on what it believes is wrong with the paper. From a post: "Earlier this year, the COD conducted a confidential internal review based upon allegations it received regarding certain aspects of this paper. While student privacy laws and MIT policy prohibit the disclosure of the outcome of this review, we are writing to inform you that MIT has no confidence in the provenance, reliability or validity of the data and has no confidence in the veracity of the research contained in the paper. Based upon this finding, we also believe that the inclusion of this paper in arXiv may violate arXiv's Code of Conduct.
"Our understanding is that only authors of papers appearing on arXiv can submit withdrawal requests. We have directed the author to submit such a request, but to date, the author has not done so. Therefore, in an effort to clarify the research record, MIT respectfully request that the paper be marked as withdrawn from arXiv as soon as possible." Preprints, by definition, have not yet undergone peer review. MIT took this step in light of the publication's prominence in the research conversation and because it was a formal step it could take to mitigate the effects of misconduct. The author is no longer at MIT. [...]
"We are making this information public because we are concerned that, even in its non-published form, the paper is having an impact on discussions and projections about the effects of AI on science. Ensuring an accurate research record is important to MIT. We therefore would like to set the record straight and share our view that at this point the findings reported in this paper should not be relied on in academic or public discussions of these topics." The paper in question, titled "Artificial Intelligence, Scientific Discovery, and Product Innovation" and authored by Aidan Toner-Rodgers, investigated the effects of introducing an AI-driven materials discovery tool to 1,018 scientists in a U.S. R&D lab. The study reported that AI-assisted researchers discovered 44% more materials, filed 39% more patents, and achieved a 17% increase in product innovation. These gains were primarily attributed to AI automating 57% of idea-generation tasks, allowing top-performing scientists to focus on evaluating AI-generated suggestions effectively. However, the benefits were unevenly distributed; lower-performing scientists saw minimal improvements, and 82% of participants reported decreased job satisfaction due to reduced creativity and skill utilization.
The Wall Street Journal reported on MIT's statement.
"Our understanding is that only authors of papers appearing on arXiv can submit withdrawal requests. We have directed the author to submit such a request, but to date, the author has not done so. Therefore, in an effort to clarify the research record, MIT respectfully request that the paper be marked as withdrawn from arXiv as soon as possible." Preprints, by definition, have not yet undergone peer review. MIT took this step in light of the publication's prominence in the research conversation and because it was a formal step it could take to mitigate the effects of misconduct. The author is no longer at MIT. [...]
"We are making this information public because we are concerned that, even in its non-published form, the paper is having an impact on discussions and projections about the effects of AI on science. Ensuring an accurate research record is important to MIT. We therefore would like to set the record straight and share our view that at this point the findings reported in this paper should not be relied on in academic or public discussions of these topics." The paper in question, titled "Artificial Intelligence, Scientific Discovery, and Product Innovation" and authored by Aidan Toner-Rodgers, investigated the effects of introducing an AI-driven materials discovery tool to 1,018 scientists in a U.S. R&D lab. The study reported that AI-assisted researchers discovered 44% more materials, filed 39% more patents, and achieved a 17% increase in product innovation. These gains were primarily attributed to AI automating 57% of idea-generation tasks, allowing top-performing scientists to focus on evaluating AI-generated suggestions effectively. However, the benefits were unevenly distributed; lower-performing scientists saw minimal improvements, and 82% of participants reported decreased job satisfaction due to reduced creativity and skill utilization.
The Wall Street Journal reported on MIT's statement.
Say what? (Score:4, Funny)
You mean this paper [slashdot.org]?
Streisand effect (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More information on the paper. Essentially it was horse-shit and likely involved academic fraud.
It would appear MIT acted correctly (And for reference retractions are good and normal and part of the peer review process)
https://thebsdetector.substack... [substack.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I think that removing all references to MIT is a reasonable request, but probably not one that there's any formal method of making.
FWIW, I'm pretty much willing to believe that MIT doesn't think the paper is valid. Either that, or it feels that some law was violated in the way the data was handled. But, yeah, they should be satisfied if all references to MIT were removed from the paper. (However, not "just the front page".)
Preprint (Score:2)
The whole point of preprints is to put it out there.
MIT is trying to do peer review and frankly censorship.
People are free to make fun of any preprint. Or to celebrate it.
Hopefully arXive tells them to pound sand.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole point of preprints is to put it out there.
MIT is trying to do peer review and frankly censorship.
People are free to make fun of any preprint. Or to celebrate it.
Hopefully arXive tells them to pound sand.
Burning a paper that someone finds objectionable is not the correct action. A better action would be to allow the paper to stand alongside letters of comment by others in a way where the paper cannot be seen without also seeing that there exists a thread of objections.
The paper may not be academically honest, but true academic honesty requires and demands that all criticisms and objections are public and themselves open to criticism. Absent the practical ability to see and criticize the objections, those ob
A.I marketing waffle .. (Score:2)
“This paper studies the impact of artificial intelligence on innovation, exploiting the randomized introduction of a new materials discovery technology to 1,018 scientists in the R&D lab of a large U.S. firm. AI-assisted researchers discover 44% more materials, resulting in a 39% increase in patent filings and a 17% rise in downstream product innovation.”
“These compounds possess more novel chemical structures a