[noosphr]

>We also don't know, in situations like this, whether all of or how much of the research is true.

That's perfectly fine since we don't know how much of the original research is true either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

If I waste three months doing a manual literature review on papers which are fraudulent with 100% accuracy have I gained anything compared to doing it with an AI in 20 minutes with 60% accuracy?

[Jensson]

> If I waste three months doing a manual literature review on papers which are fraudulent with 100% accuracy have I gained anything compared to doing it with an AI in 20 minutes with 60% accuracy?

You don't see how adding 40% error rate on top of that makes things worse? Your 20 minute study there made you less informed, not more, at least the fraudulent papers teaches you what the community thinks about the topic while the AI just misinforms you about the world in your example.

For example, while reading all those fraudulent papers you will probably discover that they don't add up and thus figure out that they are fraudulent. The AI study however will likely try to connect the data in those so they make sense (due to how LLM works, it has seen more examples that connect and make sense than not, so hallucinations will go in that direction) then the studies will not seem as fraudulent as they actually are and you might even miss the fraud entirely due to AI hallucinating arguments in favor of the studies.

[noosphr]

You are assuming my time is free and then comparing the difference between spending infinite time on something and minimal time.

[Jensson]

Uninformed is better than misinformed, its better to not do that research at all than having such a high error rate as your example had. AI models often have much less error rate than you said there for certain topics, but the 40% error rate in your example does firmly put it where you are better off doing nothing at all than using that for research.