5 ms·

Moving this out of a subthread, but I can't find any sources corroborating the the phenomenon described in this article. In fact a lot of the literature from NA

Moving this out of a subthread, but I can't find any sources corroborating the the phenomenon described in this article. In fact a lot of the literature from NASA seems to explicitly contradict the claims in the article[0][1]. Obviously not dispositive, but this article reads to me at least partially like AI confabulation. Perhaps my Google-fu is lacking here but I had Claude do a search as well for good measure and couldn't find any supporting evidence that way either. Without the author offering more primary sources I would advise against placing too much if any stock in this piece. [0] https://humanresearchroadmap.nasa.gov/Evidence/reports/BMed https://humanresearchroadmap.nasa.gov/Evidence/reports/BMed.... [1] https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-30583-2_ https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-30583-2_...

rfarley04 2mo ago
Seemingly unrelated, I just saw some post on /new that was saying Dunning-Kruger had been debunked by some recent study. It looked pretty sus so I kagi'ed it and lo and behold guess what came up: https://spacedaily.com/j-v-the-dunning-kruger-effect-mapped-by-two-cornell-psychologists-in-1999-found-that-the-least-skilled-people-often-vastly-overrate-their-ability-while-top-performers-tend-to-judge-themselves-more/ https://spacedaily.com/j-v-the-dunning-kruger-effect-mapped-...
- eru 2mo ago
  The 'Dunning-Kruger effect' of internet folklore is not what was in the original paper. And the original paper hasn't held up to well either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect#Statistical_and_better-than-average_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect#... (and Wikipedia is very mild and nice to the authors). See eg https://replicationindex.com/2020/09/13/the-dunning-kruger-effect-explained/ https://replicationindex.com/2020/09/13/the-dunning-kruger-e...
  - rfarley04 2mo ago
    Not disagreeing on that front. But the article I saw on /new and the spacedaily one, regardless of their accuracy, certainly looked like wholly AI generated writing to me
    - deleted 2mo ago
      [deleted]
    - eru 2mo ago
      Oh, ok, that makes sense! I was just going on a tangential rant about DK.
pierrec 2mo ago
>Obviously not dispositive You're too kind. The article is sloppily generated and is basically unchecked fiction presented as fact. It gives a few links and none of them support what it's saying. The "video version" of the article is even worse, it's a perfect example of the garbage that's currently filling up youtube: https://youtu.be/rmpbI4oMqwA https://youtu.be/rmpbI4oMqwA
slg 2mo ago
One good media literacy tip, unless a story is massive or there is some possibility of backlash to the writer(s), it's often a big warning sign when an article has a byline like this one "By Space Daily Editorial Team". It usually tells you no author(s) care enough about the story or are proud enough of the story to want credit for their individual work on that story. It's only made worse when you click on the accompanying "Editorial Process" link and see this: >We use AI tools as part of our publishing workflow. AI assists with research, source discovery, drafting, fact-checking support, and post-publication quality audits including broken-link scans and source verification. So this article might have been drafted by AI from sources and research done by AI, before finally being fact checked by AI. But they promise some unnamed human(s) definitely contributed at some point in that process, they just don't feel like putting their name on it.
hack1312 2mo ago
Something that seems similar that doesn’t appear to be complete bunk is the Overview Effect[0]. It even has a corresponding video[1] (14 years old so definitely not made with AI) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_effect [1] https://youtu.be/CHMIfOecrlo https://youtu.be/CHMIfOecrlo
tecleandor 2mo ago
Yep, the article doesn't have a single link reference supporting its claims, and of the four (unnecessary) links in the article, one doesn't say anything related to the text link.
bromuro 2mo ago
All these links are not working to me
- pierrec 2mo ago
  The links are cropped because they were copied from the "rendered" version of the original comment which you'll find by scrolling down the thread. Working links: https://humanresearchroadmap.nasa.gov/Evidence/reports/BMed.pdf https://humanresearchroadmap.nasa.gov/Evidence/reports/BMed.... https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-30583-2_9 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-30583-2_...

rfarley04 2mo ago

Seemingly unrelated, I just saw some post on /new that was saying Dunning-Kruger had been debunked by some recent study. It looked pretty sus so I kagi'ed it and lo and behold guess what came up: https://spacedaily.com/j-v-the-dunning-kruger-effect-mapped-by-two-cornell-psychologists-in-1999-found-that-the-least-skilled-people-often-vastly-overrate-their-ability-while-top-performers-tend-to-judge-themselves-more/ https://spacedaily.com/j-v-the-dunning-kruger-effect-mapped-...

eru 2mo ago
The 'Dunning-Kruger effect' of internet folklore is not what was in the original paper. And the original paper hasn't held up to well either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect#Statistical_and_better-than-average_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect#... (and Wikipedia is very mild and nice to the authors). See eg https://replicationindex.com/2020/09/13/the-dunning-kruger-effect-explained/ https://replicationindex.com/2020/09/13/the-dunning-kruger-e...
- rfarley04 2mo ago
  Not disagreeing on that front. But the article I saw on /new and the spacedaily one, regardless of their accuracy, certainly looked like wholly AI generated writing to me
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  - eru 2mo ago
    Oh, ok, that makes sense! I was just going on a tangential rant about DK.

pierrec 2mo ago

>Obviously not dispositive You're too kind. The article is sloppily generated and is basically unchecked fiction presented as fact. It gives a few links and none of them support what it's saying. The "video version" of the article is even worse, it's a perfect example of the garbage that's currently filling up youtube: https://youtu.be/rmpbI4oMqwA https://youtu.be/rmpbI4oMqwA

slg 2mo ago

One good media literacy tip, unless a story is massive or there is some possibility of backlash to the writer(s), it's often a big warning sign when an article has a byline like this one "By Space Daily Editorial Team". It usually tells you no author(s) care enough about the story or are proud enough of the story to want credit for their individual work on that story. It's only made worse when you click on the accompanying "Editorial Process" link and see this: >We use AI tools as part of our publishing workflow. AI assists with research, source discovery, drafting, fact-checking support, and post-publication quality audits including broken-link scans and source verification. So this article might have been drafted by AI from sources and research done by AI, before finally being fact checked by AI. But they promise some unnamed human(s) definitely contributed at some point in that process, they just don't feel like putting their name on it.

hack1312 2mo ago

Something that seems similar that doesn’t appear to be complete bunk is the Overview Effect[0]. It even has a corresponding video[1] (14 years old so definitely not made with AI) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_effect [1] https://youtu.be/CHMIfOecrlo https://youtu.be/CHMIfOecrlo

tecleandor 2mo ago

Yep, the article doesn't have a single link reference supporting its claims, and of the four (unnecessary) links in the article, one doesn't say anything related to the text link.

bromuro 2mo ago

All these links are not working to me

pierrec 2mo ago
The links are cropped because they were copied from the "rendered" version of the original comment which you'll find by scrolling down the thread. Working links: https://humanresearchroadmap.nasa.gov/Evidence/reports/BMed.pdf https://humanresearchroadmap.nasa.gov/Evidence/reports/BMed.... https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-30583-2_9 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-30583-2_...