[BobbyJo]

> Nobody I know in real life, personally or at work, has expressed this belief.

TBF, most people in real life don't even know how AI works to any degree, so using that as an argument that parent's opinion is extreme is kind of circular reasoning.

> I have literally only ever encountered this anti-AI extremism (extremism in the non-pejorative sense) in places like reddit and here.

I don't see parent's opinions as anti-AI. It's more an argument about what AI is currently, and what research is supposed to be. AI is existing ideas. Research is supposed to be new ideas. If much of your research paper can be written by AI, I call into question whether or not it represents actual research.

[michaelt]

> Research is supposed to be new ideas. If much of your research paper can be written by AI, I call into question whether or not it represents actual research.

One would hope the authors are forming a hypothesis, performing an experiment, gathering and analysing results, and only then passing it to the AI to convert it into a paper.

If I have a theory that, IDK, laser welds in a sine wave pattern are stronger than laser welds in a zigzag pattern - I've still got to design the exact experimental details, obtain all the equipment and consumables, cut a few dozen test coupons, weld them, strength test them, and record all the measurements.

Obviously if I skipped the experimentation and just had an AI fabricate the results table, that's academic misconduct of the clearest form.

[BobbyJo]

I am not an academic, so correct me if I am wrong, but in your example, the actual writing would probably only represent a small fraction of the time spent. Is it even worth using AI for anything other than spelling and grammar correction at that point? I think using an LLM to generate a paper from high level points wouldn't save much, if any, time if it was then reviewed the way that would require.

My brother in law is a professor, and he has a pretty bad opinion of colleagues that use LLMs to write papers, as his field (economics) doesn't involve much experimentation, and instead relies on data analysis, simulation, and reasoning. It seemed to me like the LLM assisted papers that he's seen have mostly been pretty low impact filler papers.

[aydyn]

> I am not an academic, so correct me if I am wrong, but in your example, the actual writing would probably only represent a small fraction of the time spent. Is it even worth using AI for anything other than spelling and grammar correction at that point? I think using an LLM to generate a paper from high level points wouldn't save much, if any, time if it was then reviewed the way that would require.

Its understandable that you believe that, but its absolutely true that writing in academia is a huge time sink. Think about it, the first thing your reviewers are going to notice is not results but how well it is written.

If its written terribly you have lost, and it doesnt matter how good your results are at that point. Its common to spend days with your PI writing a paper to perfection, and then spend months back and forth with reviewers updating and improving the text. This is even more true the higher up you go in journal prestige.

[aydyn]

> TBF, most people in real life don't even know how AI works to any degree

How about the authors who do research for NeurIPS? Do they know how AI works?

[Intermernet]

Who knows? Do NeurIPS have a pedigree of original, well sourced research dating back to before the advent of LLMs? We're at the point where both of the terms "AI" and "Experts" are so blurred it's almost impossible to trust or distrust anything without spending more time on due diligence than most subjects deserve.

As the wise woman once said "Ain't nobody got time for that".

[Davidzheng]

"If much of your research paper can be written by AI, I call into question whether or not it represents actual research" And what happens to this statement if next year or later this year the papers that can be autonomously written passes median human paper mark?

[BobbyJo]

What does it mean to cross the median human paper mark? How os that measured?

It seems to me like most of the LLM benchmarks wind up being gamed. So, even if there were a good benchmark there, which I do not believe there is, the validity of the benchmark would likely diminish pretty quickly.