Post #972445

2025-03-24 13:20 UTC

Our library has access to a book published by Springer, _Advanced Nanovaccines for Cancer Immunotherapy: Harnessing Nanotechnology for Anti-Cancer Immunity_. Credited to Nanasaheb Thorat, it sells for $160 in hardcover: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-86185-7 From page 25: &quot;It is important to note that as an AI language model, I can provide a general perspective, but you should consult with medical professionals for personalized advice...&quot; None of this book can be considered trustworthy. (h/t @peterpur )

Replies (23)

@JMarkOckerbloom@mastodon.social 2025-03-24 15:56

If you're interested in this post, you might also be interested in helping save IMLS, which is now under DOGE attack. Here's something I wrote yesterday about the great stuff they do for libraries and museums, and how you can speak up for them to public officials who can ensure IMLS's healthy future: https://everybodyslibraries.com/2025/03/23/support-the-imls/

Open ##2831007
@JMarkOckerbloom@mastodon.social 2025-03-27 16:23

@peterpur@hci.social It looks like Springer may have withdrawn the book; the link I had in my post now goes to a "page not found" message rather than a book cover page. (It still shows up in SpringerLink search hits, but unlike other book hits lacks a working link.) I haven't seen any official announcement or news mentions, though. #AIslop

Open ##2831008
@johnny@chaos.social 2025-03-24 14:37

@JMarkOckerbloom@mastodon.social @peterpur@hci.social The entire chapter looks like very obvious GPT-slop at first glance. Probably ditto for the entire book. Does nobody review anything anymore?

Open ##2831009
@mikro2nd@indieweb.social 2025-03-24 14:54

@JMarkOckerbloom@mastodon.social @peterpur@hci.social Reading between the lines, here... this is the sort of crap that should/would normally be caught in copy-edit, BUT: copy editors are being rapidly put out of work by publishers' use of "AI", so I can only think that (perhaps!) this was *seen* and *ignored* by the copy editor. Assuming Springer could be arsed to hire one. Coming soon to a bookshelf near you: "Revenge of the Copy Editor" ;-)

Open ##2831010
@nelson@wetdry.world 2025-03-24 14:55

@JMarkOckerbloom@mastodon.social @peterpur@hci.social Nanovaccines, son!

Open ##2831075
@chantaryu2@pataterie.ca 2025-03-24 16:07

@JMarkOckerbloom@mastodon.social @peterpur@hci.social the library should ask for its money back. It's like the people who got sick because they bought an AI generated mushroom guide.

Open ##2831076
@burne@waag.social 2025-03-24 16:36

@JMarkOckerbloom@mastodon.social And there goes the reputation of Springer Verlag.. What? Oh yeah. Sorry, my bad, there was no reputation to start with..

Open ##2831077
@merileedkarr@federated.press 2025-03-24 16:52

@JMarkOckerbloom@mastodon.social @peterpur@hci.social WHAT?

Open ##2831083
@glc@mastodon.online 2025-03-24 17:14

Such language is seen in many articles - often in the abstract. They pass peer review of course. Tangentially - 2021 https://retractionwatch.com/2021/09/28/springer-nature-slaps-more-than-400-papers-with-expressions-of-concern-all-at-once/ 2023 @JMarkOckerbloom@mastodon.social @peterpur@hci.social https://retractionwatch.com/2023/10/06/signs-of-undeclared-chatgpt-use-in-papers-mounting/ 2025 https://www.researchinformation.info/news/springer-profits-up-to-e512-million/

Open ##2831084
@scruss@xoxo.zone 2025-03-24 17:18

@JMarkOckerbloom@mastodon.social @peterpur@hci.social typical Springer... Jerry, that is.

Open ##2831085
@brainwashed@nrw.social 2025-03-24 18:08

@JMarkOckerbloom@mastodon.social @peterpur@hci.social LOL. Quick look at Google Schoolar shows, they are far from the only ones. But having that make it to print is something else. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22as+an+AI+language+model%22+-chatgpt+-gpt

Open ##2831086
@Anarcat@kolektiva.social 2025-03-24 18:29

@bremner@mathstodon.xyz @JMarkOckerbloom@mastodon.social @peterpur@hci.social #AI is really taking #enshitification to a whole other level

Open ##2831087
@uecker@mastodon.social 2025-03-24 19:59

@JMarkOckerbloom@mastodon.social @peterpur@hci.social One could have told from the abstract: "... Delving into nanovaccine science and showcasing its potential in the fight against cancer, .."

Open ##2831088
@aguleb@masto.ai 2025-03-24 20:21

@JMarkOckerbloom@mastodon.social @peterpur@hci.social 😱 I once contributed to a Springer book. There was no proof-reading, feedback or editing whatsoever. Everything I wrote made it to the book 1:1. This was a total eye-opener to me and completely disillusioning. Before this everything printed to me was near-holy.

Open ##2831090
@_michaljan@mastodon.social 2025-03-24 22:02

@JMarkOckerbloom@mastodon.social @peterpur@hci.social @dylanbeattie@hachyderm.io time to update your AI talk? 😬

Open ##2831093
@dbs@code4lib.social 2025-03-25 01:53

@JMarkOckerbloom@mastodon.social @peterpur@hci.social at this point I shouldn't be surprised and angry every time an example like this turns up but OMG I am so sick of publishers claiming they have to charge massive APCs to support all of their value-add editing and QA work... when clearly nobody there is bothering to pay even the slightest bit of attention before hitting "Publi$h."

Open ##2831094
@feisty_lemming@mstdn.ca 2025-03-25 06:30

@JMarkOckerbloom@mastodon.social @peterpur@hci.social Clearly this book was not copy-edited. This would never make it past a human copy-editor who actually read it. Edit: Assuming they wouldn’t just ignore the editor’s corrections.

Open ##2831095
@Ecthompsonmd@newsie.social 2025-03-25 07:16

@JMarkOckerbloom@mastodon.social @peterpur@hci.social What the heck? How did that get published?

Open ##2831096
@DarkestKale@mastodon.social 2025-03-25 08:42

@JMarkOckerbloom@mastodon.social @peterpur@hci.social fuuuuuck meeeeee

Open ##2831097
@davidgerard@circumstances.run 2025-03-25 11:43

@JMarkOckerbloom@mastodon.social @peterpur@hci.social tempted to make some journalistic queries on this one. I assume that the LLM assistance is disclosed nowhere in the book?

Open ##2831098
@earthtoneone@mstdn.social 2025-03-25 14:29

@JMarkOckerbloom@mastodon.social @peterpur@hci.social Amazon apparently deleted all the reviews and marked it "not eligible for review"... if you needed another reason to distrust Amazon.

Open ##2831100
@margoline@openbiblio.social 2025-03-29 10:42

@JMarkOckerbloom@mastodon.social @peterpur@hci.social Apparently Amazon doesn‘t mind at all that the book has been flagged as misusing AI and been taken down from Springer’s website. You can still buy copies from Amazon stock for 139,40€, despite two negative reviews. Advanced Nanovaccines for Cancer Immunotherapy: Harnessing Nanotechnology for Anti-Cancer Immunity https://amzn.eu/d/ghjLtvN

Open ##2831104
@WiseWoman@fediscience.org 2025-05-26 17:17

@JMarkOckerbloom@mastodon.social @peterpur@hci.social I wrote to the "author", he felt he was not able to use AI and didn't know how this sentence got in there. Right. I got a journalist to publish an article about it in German in the FAZ, in print and online (behind a paywall, unfortunately): https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wissen/forschung-politik/ki-einsatz-bei-springer-nature-buecher-denen-man-nicht-trauen-kann-110426568.html

Open ##2831105