Tag: quality

Rejection Letter

Posted in philosophyTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 4 Comments
Rejected Note
2–3 minutes

Dear Author. [REDACTED] does not accept the submission of personal works produced by students, independent researchers, or professionals who have not yet attained a doctoral level. This is a moderation policy intended to ensure that publications deposited on the platform originate from qualified researchers affiliated with a recognized institution (REDACTED) and acknowledged for their expertise or previous work in the relevant field of research. This rule applies regardless of the quality or scientific value of the work, which is by no means in question here. We therefore regret to inform you that we are unable to accept this submission. If you wish, we invite you to share your work through other open platforms such as Zenodo, which allow all authors to make their research visible. Thank you for your understanding. Kind regards

Allow me to rephrase this:

Dear Author,

We regret to inform you that whilst your work is not in question, you are. Our platform does not accept submissions from students, independent researchers, or professionals who have not yet acquired the correct ceremonial headgear. This policy exists to ensure that ideas originate from bodies already sanctified by a recognised institution. The content may be rigorous, original, and valuable, but that is neither here nor there. Knowledge, like wine, must age in the right cellar.

Please consider sharing your work elsewhere. Zenodo is very accommodating to the uncredentialled.

Kind regards.

Disappointing, though hardly surprising. This is the same logic as age-based thresholds I have recently taken a hammer to: crude proxies elevated into moral and epistemic gatekeepers. Not ‘is this good?’, but ‘are you old enough, stamped enough, letterheaded enough to be taken seriously?’. A bureaucratic horoscope.

Yes, I use Zenodo. I use PhilPapers. I will continue to do so. But let’s not pretend all platforms are socially equivalent. Journals still function as credibility engines, not because they magically improve truth, but because they distribute legitimacy. To be excluded on status grounds alone is not a quality filter. It is a caste system with footnotes.

And journals already make participation unnecessarily hostile. Many refuse work that has been publicly shared at all, even in preprint form. Lead times stretch to a year or more. The result is that anyone attempting to contribute to live debates is instructed to sit quietly whilst the conversation moves on without them. In a so-called knowledge economy, this is an astonishing self-own.

What we have, then, is a system that:

  • equates institutional affiliation with epistemic competence,
  • penalises open dissemination,
  • and delays circulation until relevance decays.

All in the name of rigour.

I will keep submitting elsewhere. There are other journals. There always are. But let’s stop pretending this is about protecting standards. It is about preserving a hierarchy that mistakes accreditation for insight and treats independent thought as a contamination risk.

Knowledge does not become true by passing through the right doorway. It merely becomes approved. I’ll not witter on about the bollocks of peer review.

microglyphics's avatar

Written by Bry Willis

microglyphics

Midjourney Alpha

Posted in fiction, technologyTagged , , , , , , , , , , , 3 Comments

Many of my readers know that I use AI often. I have been using it to create content for an in-depth book review for The Blind Owl. For those less aware of the foibles of generative AI, I share some insights—or low-lights. For this, I used Midjourney v6.1.

Prompt: a young woman gives a flower to an old man, who is crouched under a large cypress tree by a river

I issued this prompt, and as per usual, it rendered four options. Notice that in some instances, the tree is not a key element.

Given enough time, one can slowly improve to obtain the desired result.

Here, an old man indeed crouches under a prominent cypress tree and by a river. A young woman hands him some flowers—though not so much blue morning glories. On balance, I like this output, but it still needs work.

Some other problems:

  1. The man is looking away—neither at her nor her flowers.
  2. Her (right) eye is deformed.
  3. Her left hand is deformed.
  4. I didn’t ask for jewellery—an earring.

At least I can in-paint out these imperfections—perhaps.

Here’s another render using the same image prompt.

Notice that it ignored the man altogether. My point is that for every awesome image you see, there may have been hundreds of iterations to get there. There are ways to get persistent characters and scenes, but this takes a bit of up-from effort and iterations that one can leverage going forward.

On the topic of Midjourney model 6.0 versus 6.1, I share this comparison—front-facing faces for a character sheet for this old man. Here, I prefer the earlier model as displayed in the top row.

In some cases, there are minor improvements over v6.0. In other cases, they stepped back. v6.1 renders less realistic human images, making them look more computer-generated and less natural. It also over-applies sexual stereotypes, traditional beauty archetypes, smoother skin, and so on. But that’s not the main topic for today.

DISCLAIMER: This post has little to do with philosophy, but it ties into a philosophical novella.