馃憞totally agree
re "disclosing AI use in papers" discussion that re-emerges: please lets not do itView quoted post on X
as a reviewer or a reader of a paper, i do not care what part of the ideation, research, proof, implementation or writing was done by AI, and how the credit is split between the AI and human author.
at the end of the day, humans sign on the resulting paper, and this is all i care about. that they stand behind the text they produced. i don't care if the idea is theirs or came from the AI or is a shared process. i do care that they found it compelling enough to publish.
in any case i don't trust the authors to accurately describe how the idea evolved between them and the AI: even if they do try and be honest, i think in most cases its a complex process the author themselves don't fully understand.
when i work with a student, i certainly do want them to explain how they used AI and which parts of the work, idea or argument are primarily AI driven. but this is in order to guide and improve the student's work and process, not because i care about the credit assignment. it's part of their training and my mentoring, and should not leak into the final work. the readers and reviewers should not be bothered with it.
so please. let just have people submit work without the silly AI disclosures, and be very trigger-happy on rejecting papers that are clear AI slop, or that are hard to evaluate due to what may be improper AI use.
(in the short term, we will likely see an increase in conference submissions that have the same idea, coming from different authors having a similar process with a shared AI. i think this will sort itself in the long run by reducing the credit assigned to such works in the community, but in the short term we may want the conference management software to actively look for such similar submission, and maybe review them in bulk)
