Scott Adams

that doesn't accept papers that look really suspicious.

So that may improve things.

But I don't expect the trend to stop because I think it is very attractive to a lot of scientists to say, if I can get twice as many papers published, then I might get twice as much money.

And there's a whole lot of money behind all this stuff.

So follow the money would tell you that this is going to continue.

And I think AI is very capable of generating paper

It probably can be done ethically where you actually do the study and you get the data set and then you just tell AI, write a study based on this or write the text that goes with this, or at least create a first draft.

And then I'm going to review it and make sure it's all right.

I'm going to make edits and stuff.

And I could buy the argument that that might raise your productivity and not necessarily sacrifice the science.

But I also think in many cases, the AI can get it wrong and it is a risky thing to do.

And it's probably also very easily for a scientist to just be lazy and say,

looks good to me and not really check it very closely.

And I think the whole process is flawed in the peer review process too.

And there's been articles about that that I posted in the past where they don't even get access to the data set most of the time.

So you don't even have the data itself to scrutinize.

You're just scrutinizing that person's analysis of the data, which is the stuff you read when you read the study.

And so that really limits what a peer review process can do because if the data looks wrong,

you know if it looks fake they're not even gonna be able to tell that they're only gonna be able to tell you know does your analysis of it look right or does it look like you made it up or something it's a lot harder to do that but i think this machine learning tool might be a step in the right direction but i think um you know to me there probably needs to be a more rigorous overhaul of the whole process and i think more transparency rules that you probably shouldn't have to disclose your data

you're doing peer review at least but probably in my mind you should probably also disclose it when you publish the study so that other people who aren't replicating can also see the data i don't really see why you would hide it unless you have something to hide right all right so there's always something to hide more fraud and you know scott might also just say whenever there's a lot of money and there's a lot of people involved there's going to be fraud