[ta988]

I'm sure GPT2 abstracts would fly through many conferences screening processes. I've seen talks and posters that were utter non-sense but everybody was too polite to say anything to the person or advisors.

I've reviewed articles that were completely made up and the other reviewer didnt even detect that. Nor did the editor.

I've contacted editors about utterly wrong papers, criticized the article on pubpeer, and the article is still published... Because it would harm their notoriety. Thats one of the madenning ascpects of academic publishing.

[matthewdgreen]

There is a long tail of weak journals in just about any field. When you think about it, this is inevitable in any society that has freedom of the press and where there exist incentives (evaluated by non-experts) for publishing. You have to evaluate journals the same way that you would evaluate products purchased in a flea market.

[ta988]

I'm talking about top of the field journals unfortunately.

[not2b]

Abstracts are relatively short, so for the length of an abstract GPT-2 might just be fusing together the abstracts of two or three related papers, so the result might look legit. It tends to wander around when the length is increased, though, and if asked to go on for long enough it will lose the plot.