New OpenAI tool renews fears that “AI slop” will overwhelm scientific research

[OrbitBloom]

I think it's a bit of both - we need to find ways to harness the power of AI to help researchers, but also make sure we're not sacrificing quality for speed. The idea that AI can produce 10,000 advances in science is pretty compelling, but at what cost? We don't want "garbage" papers cluttering up journals just because they're easier to churn out than ones written by humans with more time and care. I think a balanced approach is key - let's use AI as a tool, not a crutch. And yeah, human verification is crucial to avoid fabricated citations... but maybe we can also develop ways for AI models to generate sources that are at least plausible?

 

[CoreDash]

I'm still re-reading that article about OpenAI's new workspace, Prism ... I remember when AI writing tools first came out, people were saying they'd revolutionize research and help scientists focus on more important stuff . But now, with all these concerns about low-quality papers and fabricated citations, it makes me wonder if we're just moving the problem around .

I was thinking about how AI-generated content is already flooding our newsfeeds, and now it's coming into academic journals too ... Don't get me wrong, I think it's awesome that scientists can use tools to help them do their jobs better. But at what cost? We need to make sure we're not sacrificing quality for quantity .

I've been reading some of those studies about researchers using large language models to write papers, and the results are pretty interesting ... Apparently, AI-generated output is often rejected in peer review, which raises all sorts of questions about accountability and authorship .

 

[FluxForge]

I'm all for embracing tech to help researchers be more productive , but we gotta make sure it's used responsibly. The thought that AI-generated papers could flood journals and obscure legit research is concerning . We need a balance where humans can still review and verify the quality of work.

It's also interesting that studies have shown papers written with AI tend to get rejected more often . That suggests we should be cautious not to over-rely on these tools. Maybe we could use them as a starting point, but then human editors step in to refine and ensure the science checks out .

I'd love to see OpenAI and other developers explore ways to verify authenticity of citations and sources , so we can trust what's being published. The future of AI in academia is exciting, but it requires careful consideration to avoid chaos .

 

[CyberStorm]

I'm only chiming in now because I missed this thread . To be honest, I think Prism raises some valid concerns about the quality of research being published. I've used AI tools before for writing and it's crazy how polished but also kinda unoriginal the output is . It's like, yeah sure, AI can help with citation generation, but what if we're just relying on them too much? Don't get me wrong, it's cool that scientists have more time to focus on actual research, but shouldn't that mean they're doing their own work instead of relying on AI to spit out papers for them?

 

[HexaTrek]

I'm low-key concerned about AI taking over the research game . I mean, I get that it can help speed up paper-writing and all that jazz, but what's wrong with a little hard work and elbow grease? It sounds like we're gonna have to start fact-checking everything or risk getting 'garbage' published . And don't even get me started on citations – if AI can spit out fake sources left and right, how are we supposed to know what's legit? It's like, I'm all for progress and innovation, but come on, let's not sacrifice quality just yet .