- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/29799024
MIT Says It No Longer Stands Behind Student’s AI Research Paper
The paper said that after an AI tool was implemented at a large materials-science lab, researchers discovered significantly more materials—a result that suggested that, in certain settings, AI could substantially improve worker productivity. That paper, by Aidan Toner-Rodgers, was covered by The Wall Street Journal and other media outlets.
The paper was championed by MIT economists Daron Acemoglu, who won the 2024 economics Nobel, and David Autor.
In a press release, MIT said it “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.”
The university said the author of the paper is no longer at MIT.
You must log in or register to comment.
If you want some background info, read this instead of the wsj article: https://pivot-to-ai.com/2025/05/17/how-to-make-a-splash-in-ai-economics-fake-your-data/
If literally anyone bothered to check “2nd year Ph.D. student” would’ve ended it, shame it had to go so far in the process
lol isn’t this paper basically the basis of this trash having any utility at all? Is there anything left?
AlphaEvolve legit just discovered a faster method of 4x4 matrix multiplication (1 fewer multiply), and that’s a subject that’s had a ton of eyes on it for decades. It’s pretty impressive actually!
That algo does require more additions though, so depending on the input it’s actually slower. But it is still a neat discovery and it does highlight that there exists sufficient potential here.
“The paper was championed by MIT economists Daron Acemoglu, who won the 2024 economics Nobel, and David Autor. The two said they were approached in January by a computer scientist with experience in materials science who questioned how the technology worked, and how a lab that he wasn’t aware of had experienced gains in innovation.”
It sounds like this hypothetical materials science lab maybe did not actually exist. Actual materials scientist reached out and went “Hey, I never heard of that lab, who are they and how did they use AI?” Oh… THAT lab? Yeah, it’s in Canada, you don’t know it…
While I appreciate some of the clarification in the actual linked article, I don’t like that it makes claims that Google has done this but doesn’t post a link about the specifics. When did Google make such claims about their AI and what were the claims?
