alt Hacker NewsIt sure is! But ironically, because of the intention behind the obfuscation. Not the fact that AI was used in a research paper.
I have no issues with AI use in science. If claude can explain my research better than me, then have at it. But I do NOT want to read a passage thinking it was written by a human when it wasn't. Science has no idea yet how such disclosures should work yet. What should be done by humans as a matter of principle, and what can't be or should not be done by humans.
Replies
dleeftink • yesterday at 6:49 PM
Some authors may even choose to leave syntactical errors as a tell for those self-authored passages; long-term, some interesting language drifts may come of it.
The thing that really scared me about the landing site for Claude Science was this promotional image of the software in action:
https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6889473510b50328dbb70ae6/...
Very depressing. MDPI journals will be saturated with these slop papers (if they're not already). It shocks me that Anthropic thought that this was a good thing, and says a lot about their research integrity (or lack thereof).
> Science has no idea yet how such disclosures should work yet.
Technically, most journals have a policy that LLM use should be acknowledged, but I agree we're still very much in the weeds about this right now. Much firmer guidelines should have been established years ago.
(I also have no issues with LLM usage in research either, btw -- I use LLMs to fact-check / proofread / discuss / sanity-check my conceptual work, to background myself in other research, and to refactor and assist with analytical coding. They can be a game-changer for medical research, when used rationally and sensibly.)