I want to hear directly from the finest minds humanity has to offer. When I want something from AI, I'll ask AI myself. In short, I want to know when something is human-authored vs. AI-authored. It really matters to me and I suspect to others too.
Because, as a German academic once explained to me (years before the rise of LLMs), if you want your ideas to be influential you need people to read your papers, and you get a heck of a lot more readers when publishing in English than you do publishing in German.
Unfortunately, it's much more difficult to draw a clear line once you start allowing some AI writing tools.
Papers themselves become a source, something to check back on. They dont write themselves, it takes significant effort to make a high quality paper even with the help of AI.
And if you write a review paper that is a needed piece of literature, but this is also something that can be perfectly digested by a well crafted paper harness. and review hundreds of papers in the time you review 3.
what is it going to be? Speed of scientific progress or human crafted prose?
Papers are written in human language for humans to read.
If humans don't read the papers then you can just let the AI read the code base and unstructured experiment protocol.
What is the point in replicating the human process in this instance? The only conceivable reason is that you want to see meaningless output produced ahead of time.
Why even bother with academic publishing? Just publish the results themselves in a database and let everyone prompt the AI.
>Why even bother with academic publishing
Nobody needs the big publishing houses, we do need however peer review. And we need recreation of experiments
>most disingenuous slop peddling comments imaginable.
i think you might need to work on your imagination. It was definitely a bit provocative. But i do think that we are going towards a future, where there are scientific data dumps, and digests of those. And its clear who is the target audience for each.
You must have been living under a rock. There are plenty of cases where the "author" has succumbed to the temptation of not having to make an effort, which has shown up as prompts left in papers. Some of them shifted their efforts towards hidden AI prompts to fool the LLMs used for "peer" review.