[jrm4]

Oh, to be technically correct:

AI hallucinates and makes up stuff 100% percent of the time. Never been a fan of that word for this.

Again, I fail to see the problem here that isn't solved by careful reading WHICH IS WHAT PEOPLE SHOULD BE DOING ANYWAY. I would like to see room for AI disclosure, maybe a statement of "this is how much AI I used."

But this blanket X% of this looks like AI? Again, so what?

[jsrozner]

If as a primary school student you had needed to reverify every fact /experiment that was presented in your textbooks, you would not have gotten very far.

Trust is very important to human progress.

[jrm4]

Absolutely. Which is why what I think I'm saying is that -- it's not ncessarily important who or what WROTE the paper, it's simply important that human-in-the-loop is strong.

[jsrozner]

Right, but even careful reading cannot validate the experimental setup.

[JSR_FDED]

I find the fact that 39% of papers use a style that signals lack of effort somewhat worrisome. Even if that’s 100% wrong, and they’re all high effort papers, the fact that they give off the same aura as low effort papers is a problem for the authors.