The problem is, human beings on average will only go through the work if they are FORCED to go through the work due to a lack of existence of an easy way. Plenty of people who argue for AI don't seem to understand that the difficulty in preventing laziness is proportional to the strength of the automation enabling that laziness, and AI is much stronger than any other type of automation we've seen so far.
It's just too tempting for most and talking all day about how one should check sources is antiquated because that only worked decently when cheating wasn't so easy. Academic ethics and responsibility cannot scale in the age of AI.
> human beings on average will only go through the work if they are FORCED to go through the work
So force them.
We still see green colored things in more detail than, say, blue stuff, because once upon a time we relied on that to better navigate dense foliage, and also always had one eye peeled for dangerous animals hiding in said foliage (AFAIK, I wasn't there).
But we can't proofread stuff because it's too easy to cheat? No. If most people don't bass the minimum bar then most people don't pass the minimum bar, that doesn't move the bar. Being unable to see green doesn't make the jungle blue. Even if "the average person" no longer can't. And if most people cheat whenever they can, and if they can cheat most of the time, then we can't have a society. That is, we can have one without them, or none at all.
It's just too tempting for most and talking all day about how one should check sources is antiquated because that only worked decently when cheating wasn't so easy. Academic ethics and responsibility cannot scale in the age of AI.