I'm a bit surprised the judges themselves didn't spot that it was AI. It immediately starts with things randomly appearing out of nothing.
AI-generated fake footage in medical science is one of the things that worries me a lot these days. There's practically a constant stream of papers getting retracted due to fake AI-generated microscopy, before/after photos, plots(!), ...
My thinking is the judges weren't familiar with what a footage like this would actually look like and they might be open to accepting minor video edits for making it interesting.
It's always a slippery slope to judge things as AI first and ask questions laters. I myself feel like I might have started to attribute human effort to AI, and that honestly is the truly sad part.
> The video in question supposedly showed “abnormal beating of airway cilia in a child with primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD), a rare genetic disorder affecting respiratory function,” and the original press release announcing it as the winner had several paragraphs describing the importance of the imagery and how it was captured.
> the winner “acknowledged using AI,” and reports that other scientists raised the alarm about the video, with one expert in PCD saying that the cells in the video “look nothing like those from PCD patients.”
Imagine the gaslighting to the scientists with that press release. This is embarassing that they didn't do their due dilligence and just published it as if its real.
AI kind of won this one imo, or exposed what little fs the company gives about these competitions until it embarasses them. I wonder what their judging standards were pre AI
9 comments
[ 0.28 ms ] story [ 9.0 ms ] threadWhat in the hell are you talking about?
AI-generated fake footage in medical science is one of the things that worries me a lot these days. There's practically a constant stream of papers getting retracted due to fake AI-generated microscopy, before/after photos, plots(!), ...
It's always a slippery slope to judge things as AI first and ask questions laters. I myself feel like I might have started to attribute human effort to AI, and that honestly is the truly sad part.
> the winner “acknowledged using AI,” and reports that other scientists raised the alarm about the video, with one expert in PCD saying that the cells in the video “look nothing like those from PCD patients.”
Imagine the gaslighting to the scientists with that press release. This is embarassing that they didn't do their due dilligence and just published it as if its real.
AI kind of won this one imo, or exposed what little fs the company gives about these competitions until it embarasses them. I wonder what their judging standards were pre AI