How to write a college essay

Spread the love

Three graduate students from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology wrote a destructive generator, that is, a program that generates such pseudoscientific tests. And they also did this with some insidious intent, because there are such conferences that all scientists fall asleep with spam, they are usually held in fairly good places, they have a very large conference fee.

That is, if you have extra money left on the grant and you want to snatch a week somewhere at sea, then this conference is for you. These guys wrote such a program, generated a random text, sent it to this conference, and there this thesis was accepted. There was quite a big scandal about this. I must say that, in contrast to our case, this thesis was nevertheless accepted as unclaimed. Of course, we stood on the shoulders of giants, but we set an absolute record, because we got a review. Moreover, this is not a automatically generated review; indeed, I received a marked text with editorial corrections. Let’s take a fragment of the review to get an idea of ​​how seriously people read this work.

Here are the comments of the reviewer, they, as expected, are submitted anonymously, the author of the work should not know who reviewed it. We do not know who the author of the review is, but literally the following was written: “The manuscript of the article made a double impression on me. On the one hand, it should be recognized that the material has been collected methodologically correctly, there is innovation and novelty in the work. On the other hand, the author of the article seems not to be well acquainted with the rules for preparing scientific articles for the press. In the text of the manuscript, I noted a lot of stylistic and editorial shortcomings, and even errors, which made me appear to be some kind of incomplete work. Jeremy Stribling one of the authors of the program, when I sent him a translation of this review, was very offended he said that, from his point of view, there is just fine stylistically there. So, really, the program, it turns out, wrote a rather intelligible text, where there is even innovation and novelty, as we were told. Innovation and novelty are undoubtedly present there. The text is intelligible, but it makes a strange impression.

The last conclusion of the article says: “Thus, we can assume that in the near future, the” uproader “can have a significant impact on the development of new programming languages ​​based on Markov models.” There is a great Russian mathematician Markov, after whom Markov chains are named. It’s all absolutely meaningful too. I played a little with the translation, I must say, I really removed a little bit of stylistic flaws after the translation, because this program translates not entirely smoothly, if very honestly. However, I think it would have come down like that, it would just be more stylistic remarks. And besides, I first decided to play an honest game, and I hung a bunch of red flags all over the text. For example, I inserted gratitude to Professor Gelfand, who drew the author’s attention to the problem of publishing random texts.