Close
Image News

Science journal publishes AI-generated ‘Rat Dck’ images

Discover how AI-generated "science" images fooled experts and made it into a prestigious journal. A tale of tech gone awry, raising alarms on scientific integrity.

Science journal publishes AI-generated ‘Rat Dck’ images
  • PublishedFebruary 16, 2024

Recent developments‍ in the realm of scientific publishing ⁢have ​brought to light the use of AI-generated images in a study published by the journal Frontiers ⁢in​ Cell and Developmental Biology. The research, ⁤which delves into the interplay ⁣between mammalian testicular stem cells and a signaling pathway linked ‍to inflammation and cancer, included images created by the AI tool Midjourney. While the text of the paper seems legitimate, the illustrations, which are meant to depict rat⁤ testes and​ cellular pathways, are both inaccurate and bizarre.

Scrutiny of ​AI-created figures

One particular image in the study shows a⁣ rat ⁤with ‌various parts of its anatomy mislabeled with nonsensical terms. Despite ‌the journal’s rigorous⁢ initial quality checks, these misleading visuals slipped‍ through the cracks and were published. The​ researchers did acknowledge the use of Midjourney⁢ for image generation,⁢ but the journal’s policy ‍on corrections suggests that‌ such misleading figures​ should be amended. The co-author of the study, ⁣Dingjun Hao from Xi’an Jiaotong University, has​ yet to comment on the issue.

At first glance, ‌some‌ of the⁤ paper’s figures might ‍seem plausible to those​ not well-versed in biology. However, a closer examination reveals that the labels are gibberish, a clear indication⁣ of ‍AI’s involvement in their creation. This ⁤raises questions about the review process, as the paper ⁢was ‌edited and⁣ reviewed‌ by‌ experts in the field of⁢ animal reproduction and⁢ nutrition.

Figure 2 in the paper⁣ is a diagram of the JAK-STAT signaling pathway, or ⁣at least it’s meant to be.

The challenge of discerning AI-generated‍ content

AI’s proficiency in generating content that ⁤appears credible is ⁤not to be underestimated. A study by Northwestern University‌ and the University of Chicago found that ‍experts were fooled by ChatGPT-produced scientific abstracts 32% of ‍the time. This suggests that AI⁢ has the potential to disrupt scientific integrity if ⁤not used responsibly.

Alexander Pearson, a data scientist and co-author of the study on AI-generated abstracts, emphasized the potential ⁢benefits of generative ​text technology for science but also highlighted the need ‍for careful consideration of ⁣its application.

Figure 3 supposedly shows relationships ​between the pathway and aspects of the stem cells.

Implications for scientific publishing

The ease⁣ of creating AI images,⁤ coupled with their visual appeal, has ‍led to a surge⁣ in their use in scientific​ literature and media. However, the complexity of accurately representing scientific concepts in AI-generated⁤ diagrams poses a significant challenge.

The inclusion of such images in the recent study casts doubt on the⁣ entire research, distracting readers with ‍glaring ‍inaccuracies. ⁢This incident is‌ reminiscent ‍of past instances where nonsensical papers have slipped through peer review, ‍highlighting the ongoing issue of “paper mills” producing worthless‍ research. In one⁣ notable case, Springer Nature retracted 44 papers from the Arabian Journal ⁤of Geosciences in⁢ 2021 due to their lack of scientific validity.

While the research in question may​ be sound, the presence of Midjourney-generated images undermines ‌the study’s‍ credibility, leaving readers ⁢to ponder the‍ veracity of the depicted signaling⁤ pathways amidst the confusion of ⁤the rat’s anatomy.

Written By
Javier Rodriguez

Javier Rodriguez is a distinguished Spanish journalist renowned for his profound interest in technology and artificial intelligence. With a career spanning several years, Rodriguez has established himself as a leading voice in the tech journalism landscape.

Exit mobile version