Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Randomly Generated Paper Accepted to Conference

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the swi-jljkd8623hds-s89s-da-s dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 658

mldqj writes "Some students at MIT wrote a program called SCIgen - An Automatic CS Paper Generator. From their website: SCIgen is a program that generates random Computer Science research papers, including graphs, figures, and citations. What's amazing is that one of their randomly generated paper was accepted to WMSCI 2005. Now they are accepting donation to fund their trip to the conference and give a randomly generated talk."

cancel ×

658 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Random Relpy (3, Funny)

extremescholar (714216) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225300)

Random Post!

Correction (2, Insightful)

Uber Banker (655221) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225395)

That was a highly deterministic post.

Re:Random Relpy (0, Flamebait)

B3ryllium (571199) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225485)

Who the hell is "Relpy"? Any relation to Ralphie from the Simpsons?

My cat's breath smells like cat food!

Patents application (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12225301)

Their original plan was to do this with a patent application instead... but decided they needed a challenge.

In other news... (5, Funny)

umrgregg (192838) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225303)

In other news a randomly generated story submission was accepted by /. moderators.

Re:In other news... (5, Insightful)

peculiarmethod (301094) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225327)

In other news a randomly generated story submission was accepted by /. moderators.

no joke. this is not new news.. legislators have been accepting papers without review for years.

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12225430)

I gave you a +1 insightful. If I could have, I would have +1 funny, +1 interesting, and +1 sad all at the same time.

Re:In other news... (5, Funny)

Scoria (264473) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225339)

Twice.

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12225396)

Heh... and wait till tomorrow when a different editor posts the same article as a dupe.

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12225444)

No need. They have a random function for automatically generating those.

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12225489)

Why would it have to be a different editor?

Re:In other news... (1)

Sebby (238625) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225473)

"In other news a randomly generated story submission was accepted by /. moderators.'

Correction: slashdot editors are accepting randomly generated false statements [slashdot.org] from industry leaders

I'd hate to be a paper referee after this. (4, Interesting)

winkydink (650484) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225304)

It's a thankless job to begin with. Now you have to approach each one with, "is this the real deal, or some bs-generated thing?"

Oh, and a collection of my as-yet unpublished white papers will be available soon. Cheap. :)

Re:I'd hate to be a paper referee after this. (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225332)

Actually, if more people asked questions like that the world would be a much better place.

Re:I'd hate to be a paper referee after this. (4, Insightful)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225400)

Generally speaking, if you ever find yourself asking "Is this bullshit?" you already know the answer.

Re:I'd hate to be a paper referee after this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12225557)

I hate paradoxes!

Re:I'd hate to be a paper referee after this. (2, Funny)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225439)

It's a thankless job to begin with. Now you have to approach each one with, "is this the real deal, or some bs-generated thing?"

Well, maybe they could use this program [slashdot.org] to filter the generated stuff out ;-)

Re:I'd hate to be a paper referee after this. (1)

greenreaper (205818) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225572)

The worrying thing is that they're close enough for it to be in doubt to start with . . .

Randomly generated first post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12225305)

fsdjkljklcn,.etkljvklxvlxz./vnkelwnvlnmlckl

The blind publishing the blind. (5, Insightful)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225307)


Excerpt from the submitted paper:

We question the need for digital-to-analog converters. It should be noted that we allow DHCP to harness homogeneous epistemologies without the evaluation of evolutionary programming [2], [12], [14]. Contrarily,the lookaside buffer might not be the panacea that end-users expected. However, this method is never considered confusing. Our approach turns the knowledge-base communication sledgehammer into a scalpel.


I've received auto-generated spam emails that read a lot like this. Nice to know the WMSCI is on their toes...but judging from the content on their home page, I'm not surprised that they consider this paper conference material.

From the WMSCI's website:

Through WMSCI conferences, we are trying to relate the analytic thinking required in focused conference sessions, to the synthetic thinking, required for analogies generation, which calls for multi-focus domain and divergent thinking. We are trying to promote a synergic relation between analytically and synthetically oriented minds, as it is found between left and right brain hemispheres, by means of the corpus callosum. Then, WMSCI 2005 might be perceived as a research corpus callosum, trying to bridge analytically with synthetically oriented efforts, convergent with divergent thinkers and focused specialists with non-focused or multi-focused generalists.


What's scary is that the second paragraph was written by humans.

(FYI, the full text of the paper in question can be found here [mit.edu] , and the WMSCI website can be found here [iiisci.org] .

Re:The blind publishing the blind. (5, Insightful)

tehcrazybob (850194) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225378)

People who act surprised by things like this don't read Dilbert nearly often enough.

It seems as though corporate America consists of people trying to write as much as possible without actually saying anything. If you don't believe me, go look at the mission statement of any big company. It doesn't read like English. If it did, they might be expected to actually make something concrete.

Re:The blind publishing the blind. (5, Funny)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225452)

"If you don't believe me, go look at the mission statement of any big company. It doesn't read like English."

How else do you expect them to stretch "To make money" out to fill up an entire page?

Re:The blind publishing the blind. (4, Funny)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225563)

You are surely informed about the undeniable fact that there are some required statements to be said about the absolute absence of anything resembling content. It enables you to produce large amounts of texts without the need of unnecessary using the central nervous system.

Hmmm ... still too short. Err, I mean, the length still lets something to be desired. Err ... the total number of words is clearly beyond the threshold of acceptability. Ok, that's better, next try: The total number of words the above text actually consists of can easily be seen to clearly be beyond the business-standard threshold of acceptability. Yes, that's it! ;-)

Re:The blind publishing the blind. (1)

legojenn (462946) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225571)

It's not just America and it's not just corporate. The mission statement of the organisation I work for is "Serving Canadians". We really don't serve Canadians, we serve the Queen. If a Canadian calls for service, our canned response is see a private practicioner.

Re:The blind publishing the blind. (4, Informative)

markhb (11721) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225433)

It gets worse... they submitted another paper that was rejected, they asked why, and got this [mit.edu] in reply (several paragraphs, complete with random statistics, to say "it's too much work for us to tell you.")

Re:The blind publishing the blind. (1)

SmokeHalo (783772) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225449)

What's scary is that the second paragraph was written by humans.

Are you sure? How can you tell? ;)

obTwelveMonkeys (2)

jfisherwa (323744) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225469)

I am mentally divergent, in that I am escaping certain unnamed realities that plague my life here. When I stop going there, I will be well.

Are you also divergent, friend?

Re:The blind publishing the blind. (5, Interesting)

kat11v (848737) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225472)

This is a problem that plagues most legal documents, user manuals, and scientific papers. I recall being very frustrated (not to mention bored out of my mind) reading published research material for a 3rd year psychology course. Of all the people, you would think at least psychologists would appreciate clear, concise descriptions.

Personally I think the problem is cultural and affects people who are intelligent and know it, but not intelligent enough that they feel they don't have to prove themselves. The more obscure your references are and the more complicated your train of thought, the smarter you must be, right?

Luckly there are folks like the Plain English Campaign [plainenglish.co.uk] , " fighting for public information to be written in plain English." If you ever have to write a public document, I recommend reading through their Examples and Free Tutorials sections.

Re:The blind publishing the blind. (5, Funny)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225534)

The more obscure your references are and the more complicated your train of thought, the smarter you must be, right?

Seems to work for Dennis Miller.

Re:The blind publishing the blind. (1, Flamebait)

shawb (16347) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225535)

Of all the people, you would think at least psychologists would appreciate clear, concise descriptions.

Nah, clear, concise descriptions will allow anyone else to see that you are just plain bullshitting.

Re:The blind publishing the blind. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12225507)

What's scary is that the second paragraph was written by humans.


No, I think it was written by marketroids.

Shades of Sokal? (3, Interesting)

eddy (18759) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225531)

Looks like Sokal [nyu.edu] All Over Again

Prove it (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12225581)

"What's scary is that the second paragraph was written by humans."

You've provided no proof for your hypothesis, ergo we can only conclude that it is indeterminite if this the case.

What's it's username here? (3, Funny)

Rollie Hawk (831376) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225309)

n/t

Reverse Engineer? (1)

CypherXero (798440) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225311)

Did they reverse engineer the iPod Shuffle?

Hmm (5, Funny)

daeley (126313) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225312)

Do they accept randomly generated quotes from Linus Torvalds? ;)

Re:Hmm (3, Funny)

garcia (6573) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225360)

Only if they're not true.

How Long Before... (4, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225313)

How long before /. accepts an article randomly generated?

or has it already happened? [mit.edu]

downtown Holland, Michigan is in flames as a randomly assembled protest practices their own brand of metamoderation.

I for one... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12225314)

Welcome our new randomly generated overlords. How long before computers themselves are at the forefront of research computing?

the question is.. (5, Funny)

ShaniaTwain (197446) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225320)

Whats the equivalent monkeys per typewriter power of this software?

Re:the question is.. (3, Funny)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225403)

> Whats the equivalent monkeys per typewriter power of this software?

Don't know much 'bout monkeys and typewriter, but I reckon at least 1,000,000 pickup trucks, shotguns, and miles of highway signage, at least if it's written in Braille.

Re:the question is.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12225414)

Whats the equivalent monkeys per typewriter power of this software?

Could slashdot posters do any better?

The real question. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12225441)

Can this software be used to generate random patent applications?

You're nomenclature is confused. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12225443)

A monkey-typewriter (note: not monkey per typerwirter) is a unit of improbable entropy equal to the decible level of 350 grams of feces hurled at 1 ft per second into a plexiglass barrier.

Re:the question is.. (4, Funny)

IntelliTubbie (29947) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225465)

Whats the equivalent monkeys per typewriter power of this software?

Good thinking! I hereby propose a new unit for measuring intelligence: the MBOTY (monkey-banging-on-typewriter-years). From basic probability theory, this number is certainly always finite -- and in some cases, very much so.

Cheers,
IT

Re:the question is.. (1)

spudchucker (680073) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225511)

How many rednecks with shotguns near stop signs = a bible in braile?

Well it ain't Shakespeare. (1)

crovira (10242) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225515)

but you might get something as comprensible as some papers written by post modernists on epistomology and phenomenology.

Like WOW! Talk about opaque!

Review (2, Interesting)

Big Mark (575945) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225331)

This paper was recently accepted as a "non-reviewed" paper!

So... no-one organising the conference has actually read it? Anything would've gotten through in that case. Even slashdot trolls.

Re:Review (3, Informative)

sellin'papes (875203) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225394)

non-reviewed papers do not mean that they haven't been read. It means that it hasn't been reviewed. In the case of scientific articles, review means that your peers follow the same process and methods and see if they come up with the same conclusions.

Have a randomly generated comment (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12225344)

I for one welcome our new randomly generated comment/story overlords from soviet russia where comment posts you.

Re:Have a randomly generated comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12225420)

Breasts.

Re:Have a randomly generated comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12225481)

In Korea, computer science papers are only written by old people, where they are seen as a more formal means of communicating recent developments.

Not surprising at all (4, Informative)

shoppa (464619) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225354)

It's always been well-known that if you can't get your paper published in a refereed journal, you can probably get it published in some conference proceedings. I've even used this trick while I was in academia.

At the larger conferences they make some attempt at screening out the known crackpots. The amount of effort varies.

Re:Not surprising at all (5, Informative)

xyzzy (10685) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225482)

Yup, this conference looks like one of those used to buff resumes. If you look at the "Academic and Industry sponsors" page, you will notice that NO major universities or societies are sponsoring this conference. I get a couple invitiations to things like this a month.

Re:Not surprising at all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12225505)

You've applied this theory to all of academia when this really depends on your field of research. For instance, one should be publishing in conferences and not in journals for systems CS research.

No more monkeys... (0, Redundant)

darthgnu (866920) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225361)

...to get those million typewriters going, darn !

On a similar note... (3, Funny)

GillBates0 (664202) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225363)

check out the Random Slashdot story generator [bbspot.com] if you haven't done so already. I give it a few weeks before one of these gets accepted by the editors.

Re:On a similar note... (2, Funny)

glen604 (750214) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225532)

The best part is that it randomly puts in spelling errors as well.. that's the subterfuge needed to get the editors to accept it.

Lack of peer review (2, Interesting)

sellin'papes (875203) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225365)

This genius. Another way of exploiting bloated systems which lack proper review by peers.

On a similar note, I feel that this is where /. is successful, although it puts articles on which are sometimes bogus, the peer review puts those articles to shame.

Slashdot (2, Interesting)

Nightreaver (695006) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225371)

Sometimes you think that most of the /. posts are randomly generated, seedrf with the Wikipedia page on Slashdot subculture [wikipedia.org] ...

No big surprise (5, Interesting)

ghoti (60903) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225379)

The organizers of this stupid conference (and also some "WSEAS conference on all and everything") keep spamming me with emails about how their deadlines have been extended and how I am invited to submit a paper. This just confirms that those conferences are total crap - if not outright scams.

Actually, a former professor of mine once did something similar. They submitted a paper that they had written by hand, but that didn't make any sense (something about evaluating footprints in dark rooms) to a conference that was known for its crap quality, and it was accepted. This broke that conference's neck, however.

With some luck, this thing will have a similar result.

Re:No big surprise (2, Interesting)

russotto (537200) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225494)

I remember that one. It was two papers, one about "radiosity in an enclosed space with no internal light sources" or some such thing. (of course, the problem is trivial). The other was about footprints and actually sounded kind of interesting, though entirely silly. Both were accepted.



Here's a link:
Fake VIDEA papers [uni-dortmund.de]

Re:No big surprise (1)

almiki (686143) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225549)

From the grad students' web site:

Conference registration fee (2): $780

Sounds like those offers where they include you in a book of "smart" / "successful" / whatever people, and then charge you $50 for a copy.

HolyBabble(tm) approves of autogenerators (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12225382)

For once, HolyBabble(tm) is on-topic. Here's the randomly generated book of Solomuel.

Enjoy,
The Ministry of Information

I have anointed thee king over Israel, for his kingdom was lifted up on high, because of his issue he is unclean. And this shall be a sign to the house of Israel, bewail the burning which the LORD hath commanded, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or the prophets: I am not worthy to unloose. These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing. The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and said unto them, Will ye not shew me which of us is for the king of Babylon slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes: also the king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan, captain of the guard, saying, Take great stones in thine hand, and they mock me. But Jeremiah said, They shall not deliver thee. Obey, I beseech thee, save thou us out of his hand, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, or not? Then came Amalek, and fought with Israel in Rephidim. And Moses said unto Hobab, the son of Michaiah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asaiah a servant of the high priest that same year. Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, nor to the left, until we have passed thy borders. And I will yet be more vile than thus, and will be jealous for my holy name; After that they have borne their shame, and their abominations which they have committed. Also, thou son of David, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may give rest to the land, and all that were present with him, about six hundred men. And Saul, and Jonathan his son, and upon his garments, and lay on the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the old man, and fear thy God: I am the LORD, when I shall put my sword into the hand of them that seek thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land, neither bear the shame of the heathen any more.

Randomly generated reviews (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12225389)

I'd say that a random review generator would be more useful.

Hold on, maybe reviews are already being generated randomly. That would explain why my last paper was rejected!

Don't forget the great paper by Mazieres & Koh (5, Funny)

nweaver (113078) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225398)

Don't forget Mazieres and Kohler's great submission as well, "Get Me Off Your Fucking Mailing List" [nyu.edu]

I doubt they'll attend the conference now... (4, Insightful)

bergeron76 (176351) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225402)

After this news item, I highly doubt they'll still be able to go to the conference.

So what (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12225405)

Why is this news? Slashdot MODs have been moding up randomly generated slashdot posts for years now.

-Anonymous Monkey #957869330

Does anyone read these? (2, Funny)

Wansu (846) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225408)



An electronics lab instructor I had in college didn't read our notebooks carefully. I answered a question with the phrase, "mumbo jumbo, dog-faced in the banana patch" and he checked it.

It wasn't reviewed (5, Informative)

R.Caley (126968) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225412)

So it's hardly supprising it wasn't rejected. That people orgaising conferences will accept papers just because no one can be arsed to read them is, of course, a different matter.

So, this doesn't come close to the sucess of Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity [nyu.edu] which got into a peer reviewed journal.

My complaint about slashdot (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12225416)

Click here [pakin.org] before you moderate!!!

I, not being one of the many insolent, vicious used-car salesmen of this world, am going to make this short but sweet: In this era of rising sesquipedalianism, we must shine a light on slashdot's efforts to test another formula for silencing serious opposition. That's self-evident, and even slashdot would probably agree with me on that. Even so, I have to wonder where it got the idea that it is my view that my bitterness at it is merely the latent projection of libidinal energy stemming from self-induced anguish. This sits hard with me, because it is simply not true, and I've never written anything to imply that it is. Let's start with my claim that slashdot's inveracities are based on a technique I'm sure you've heard of. It's called "lying". I like to think I'm a reasonable person, but you just can't reason with brutal, disgusting junkies. It's been tried. They don't understand, they can't understand, they don't want to understand, and they will die without understanding why all we want is for them not to keep us perennially behind the eight ball. Now, I don't mean for that to sound pessimistic, although if you're interested in the finagling, double-dealing, chicanery, cheating, cajolery, cunning, rascality, and abject villainy by which slashdot may impose a particular curriculum, vision of history, and method of pedagogy on our school systems one of these days, then you'll want to consider the following very carefully. You'll especially want to consider that I want to give people more information about slashdot, help them digest and assimilate and understand that information, and help them draw responsible conclusions from it. Here's one conclusion I definitely hope people draw: Slashdot's callous, raving beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments) condemn innocent people to death. Slashdot then blames us for that. Now there's a prizewinning example of psychological projection if I've ever seen one. I want to make this clear, so that those who do not understand deeper messages embedded within sarcastic irony -- and you know who I'm referring to -- can process my point.

Slashdot prizes wealth and celebrity over and above decent morals and sound judgment. Now, I could go off on that point alone, but it continuously seeks adulation from its bedfellows. If you doubt this, just ask around. I once had a nightmare in which slashdot was free to make widespread accusations and insinuations without having the facts to back them up. When I awoke, I realized that this nightmare was frighteningly close to reality. For instance, slashdot's magic-bullet explanations are thoroughly otiose. Let's remember that. This is not Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, where the state would be eager to instill distrust and thereby create a need for its dictatorial views. Not yet, at least. But it argues that the most ridiculous pip-squeaks you'll ever see are easily housebroken. I wish I could suggest some incontrovertible chain of apodictic reasoning that would overcome this argument, but the best I can do is the following: It possesses no significant intellectual skills whatsoever and has no interest in erudition. Heck, it can't even spell or define "erudition", much less achieve it. Slashdot says it's going to make a big deal out of nothing faster than you can say "gastrohysterorrhaphy". Is it out of its malign mind? The answer is fairly obvious when you consider that this is kind of a touchy subject to some people. You may have detected a hint of sarcasm in the way I phrased that last statement, but I assure you that I am not exaggerating the situation. This letter has gone on far too long, in my opinion, and probably yours as well. So let me end it by saying merely that slashdot measures the value of a man by the amount of profit it can realize from him.

Parent doesn't present their joke well (1)

Fox_1 (128616) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225529)

This is apparently a randomly generated complaint letter, and not the ravings of a mad AC who hates slashdot. Though I could be wrong, it's so close to so many other posts I've seen, but usually those people don't AC themselves.

Automatic paper generation to save time? (2, Interesting)

rice_burners_suck (243660) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225418)

This one should have been published on April 1st. The real April Fools joke would have been that it's completely true, but everyone would have thought that it's a joke. And that, my friends, is what April Fools is all about.

Now if only they could modify this thing to produce papers on selected subjects, using a writing style "learned" by analyzing some of the user's own writing, so that students won't have to waste all their time writing stupid papers, and would have time for more important matters, like actually learning the material, hanging out, drinking booze, and having unsafe sex.

Combined with a genetic algorithm... (2, Interesting)

Stibidor (874526) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225423)

I've often wondered if it would be possible to create something actually interesting using a genetic algorithm operating on initally random data. I wonder if a genetic algorithm could be used to re-hash all of those random statements into something that actually has an intelligent flow to it. Maybe I should patent it. :)

Re:Combined with a genetic algorithm... (1)

Psiolent (160884) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225538)

Maybe I should patent it.

Prior art. [evopedia.com]

Re:Combined with a genetic algorithm... (1)

unk1911 (250141) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225564)

Or better yet, do this with a genetic algorithm combined with simulated annealing!

--
http://unk1911.blogspot.com [blogspot.com]

Random subjects (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12225434)

Great. Now all we need are randomly generated moderators to randomly post dupes of them with randomly generated users to bitch about it and /. will be 100% automated!

Well, that's the new education system (1)

pg110404 (836120) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225435)

Pretty soon, a blank piece of paper will be accepted.

They'll recon, if you can tear open the ream's envelope, you're smart enough.

Bonus marks, for the students who submit 'this side up' up.

Sounds a little like... (2, Informative)

HyperChicken (794660) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225442)

One Mark V Shaney [wikipedia.org] , if anyone remembers that Usenet thing.

Research by reading random paper productive? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12225450)

I wonder if it might prove useful as a brainstorming substitute to read randomly generated papers in one's field looking for occasional insights in their sentences?

It might be very close to how the brain performs research currently: randomly connect things, and then notice if they are useful to connect.

I post anonymously because I am a well known computer scientist....

History repeating (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12225457)

Here's when something similar when nonsense physics fooled a humanities journal...

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/#papers

EPIC (4, Interesting)

Lord_Dweomer (648696) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225458)

This story reminded me of the EPIC [gatech.edu] Flash (yeah yeah) video about the future of news media. Basically google ends up not just aggregating content by computer, but writing it by computer as well. Very interesting.

Shades of Social Text? No! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12225466)

Reference Sokal Affair [answers.com] <sic>

It seems this is not the same thing:

...we have not received any reviews yet for you paper entitled: "Rooter: A Methodology for the Typical Unification of Access Points and Redundancy". So, your paper has been accepted, as a non-reviewed paper...

They gamed the system, which assumes that submissions meeting some basic format will get accepted. Amusing none-the-less, but I don't plan to contribute to their travel fund!

Are these (1)

Burz (138833) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225470)

...the "Yes Men" of IT?

What the writers of SCIgen didn't realize... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12225486)

...is that the Conference itself was randomly generated complete with random session topics.

And now they just need to patent it (0, Redundant)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225488)

I'm sure the patent office will approve whatever the paper was talking about.

Hmmm. That would be the next approach. Randomly generated patent applications which you can use to sue things that seem close to them years later.

Postmodernism Generator (1)

downward dog (634625) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225493)

http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern/ [elsewhere.org] - make sure you read to the bottom.

The amazing thing is that I read through this before I realized what it was. As a philosophy major (and a history grad student), I've come across material like this over and over in academic journals.

how about randomly generated contributions .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12225499)

well,
sending randomly generated contributions in cash could however have consequences - if it looks too near to real currency;
this was not reviewed and accepted under non reviewed and marked as such:
so no biggy and no success for this randmom text generator.
it is btw a bad one: not even semantics trees seem to be implemented - or insuffiently populated: this little excerpt jumps around like mad, switching semantics at least three times in the same paragraph.
Way to go, guys: that's still at the 'random print' level, where paper is the substrate.
Far from 'random paper'.

D.A.E.H.T.I.H.S. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12225508)

It's unfortunate that nobody has yet written a paper on Dynamic Allocation of Extra Heap and the Transient Intuitive Hardware Standard, D.A.E.H.T.I.H.S. It's THE most important thing to come out of ISO this DECADE!

Aren't ... (1)

marknewlyn (609640) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225520)

they all randomly generated? Could have sworn!

Turing Test baby steps (1)

justsomecomputerguy (545196) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225527)

So, does this mean that their program has successfully passed what I would call the first baby steps in a Turing test? Or does in only show poorly on the board of reviewers? p.s. I know that a big part of a proper Turing test is that it is supposed to be an *interactive* dialogue but this has to qualify for something... at least proof that the board of reviewers themselves could be replaced with a program.

Re:Turing Test baby steps (1)

ElyseMyers (874500) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225546)

One would think that it would be a poor reflection on the boardmembers. Sereriously, i'm supporting these guys w/ everything I can -- it was a ballsy move. Perhaps replacing the reviewers themselves w/ programs will be the next step for these guys.

Hardly surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12225528)

It has occurred to me on more than one occasion that reviewers are more interested in the prestige of the Institute that has produced the paper, rather than its contents.

Random Complaints (3, Interesting)

funny-jack (741994) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225562)

I've always been a fan of Scott Pakin's automatic complaint-letter generator [pakin.org] . When I was in college, we used this all the time, including for submitting letters to the editor of our school paper. Letters that were actually printed [thefalcononline.com] . (Guess which one).

This post was brought to you by a shameless plug [blogspot.com] .

Profit Motive (5, Informative)

gvc (167165) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225574)

These junk conferences are organized for no reason other than profit. Accepting everything that is submitted is consistent with their objective.

The deal is, in an effort to get tenure or grants in a publish-or-perish world, mediocre researchers submit to these things. They are published if and only if they pay the registration fee. For this particular conference, the fee is a mere $US 390.

And there are no quantity discounts. If you have n papers you pay n times the fee.

OMGWTFBBQ!!!!1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12225578)

R0FLCOPTAR!!!1LMAOPLANE!111oneELEVEN!!11shift+one

It got in... as a "non-reviewed paper"... Sokal (2, Informative)

davids-world.com (551216) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225579)

Hmm, it made it to the conference, but it's non-reviewed. So what? The server is /.ed, can't read the correspondence, however, there's little merit for an author to get a paper into a non-refereed publication, I guess.

Alan Sokal did better back then, when the NY-based physicist wrote up an article that got published in a journal (Social Text, IIRC) - journals are supposed to be rather strict in what they accept.

The nice thing here is that they wrote a probably neat NLG (natural language generation) system to write the paper - it seems to be more practical than previous multimodal NLG systems that are much more domain/application-dependent, but generate stuff that makes sense.

Looking forward to that random talk...

Grammatical errors (2, Interesting)

GodLived (517520) | more than 9 years ago | (#12225587)

It's even replete with the typical "busy researcher is trying to meet the submission deadline" grammar errors (in boldface):

"...our methodology is similar, but will actually achieve
this goal. despite the results by Ken Thompson, ..." (p.1)
"Further, the 91 C files
contains about 8969 lines of SmallTalk..." (p.1)
"Note how deploying 16 bit architectures rather than emulating them in software
produce less jagged... results..." (p.3)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>