Smartest redditors see red as they hear scientists used "AI" to find new Nazca lines. IF THEY USED AI, I DON'T TRUST IT

>Be scientist

>Dedicate your life to researching some random super specific thing

>Finally get published after a gruelling review process

>Redditors comment "Heh, not bad, but did they consider extremely basic thing"

>shoot up a school

Many such cases.

Anything using AI I assume is hallucinating and improvising

"Yea I didn't read this study and I don't know anything about """AI""" but my favorite twitter artists say it's bad. What do you mean it's not 'generative AI'?"

My thoughts exactly. I too can take a grainy photo of the ground and draw in peepeebutt if I want to, that doesn't mean the lines are actually there.

EDIT:

Found an article with the raw images

https://thedebrief.org/look-over-300-new-nazca-lines-geoglyphs-have-been-revealed-by-ai/

Many of the raw images have drawings so weak that it's more or less random patterns that could be caused by erosion or something. They don't look like anything until the AI "processes" them.

They did go out into the field and verified that they were indeed manmade, but who cares.

For some reason we've normalized this idea that random people have the right to be skeptical (for no reason) about what a group of highly educated experts in a field publish in scientific and other professional journals.

That's not me saying, don't be skeptical or want to learn more, but if you don't have any other reason other than, "I don't think so" or "that doesn't align with how I feel", Probably just shut up.

People don't read the publishings, they don't research anything about the topic.. and they just run their mouth.

An increasingly infuriating thing I deal with in my line of work. I get it, you have an opinion and social media has allowed you to express it freely but unless you've spent literally anytime researching the topic... probably just shut up. So tired of people ignorant on a topic spreading lies based on their feelings and no facts.

Yea, of course, being sceptical is a good thing...but it only works productively if you're honest and aware about your own level of knowledge about a subject.

So many comment here are basically 'AI? That can produce false positives!'

Which is true, but also a very basic and unnuanced fact that people working with AI can be assumed to know, right?

Idk, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, right?

I'm always mildly scared that someone with more knowledge than me will point out something I've been saying is nonsense, and I try to at least to a quick google search before I say something I'm only vaguely familiar with. I'd like that to be a more universal instinct sometimes

Actually true and valid comments I fully agree just SHUT UP.

Reddit should start the narwhal lines somewhere in Nevada or another similar area. Peepeebutt, doge, nyancat, etc

XDDD that would be so epic we should get Elon on board !!!!!

It's already been flagged by the University for being AI created!

Wtf does that mean. AH AI HELP

In this specific case, I'm sure providing more context, like "in the style of ancient hieroglyphics … " would go a long way (over simplified). An expert here could provide much better context. There is already a lot of cool stuff being done outside of chatbots that's highly contextual on specific tasks

This person actually thinks they used chatgpt with prompts and shit please kill me.

Starting a sentence with "AI research" and not providing any other source is the quickest way to make me think something just isn't real

It's always funny when a redditor comments on something they learned about a minute ago as if they understand it better than actual researchers