21% fully AI generated. In other words, 21% blatant fraud.
In accident investigation we often refer to "holes in the swiss cheese lining up." Dereliction of duty is commonly one of the holes that lines up with all the others, and is apparently rampant in this field.
It might be, but I really doubt those were the documents flagged as fully AI generated. If it erased all the originality you had put into that work and made it completely bland and regressed-to-the-mean, I would hope that you would notice.
My objective function isn’t to maximize the originality of presentation - it’s to preserve the originality of thought and maximize interpretability. Prompting well can solve for that.
Who cares what tool was used to write the work? The important question is what percentage of reviews found errors or provided valuable feedback. The important metric is whether or not it did the job, not how it was produced.
I think there is a far more interesting discussion to be had here about how useful the 21% percent were. How well does an AI execute a peer review?
In accident investigation we often refer to "holes in the swiss cheese lining up." Dereliction of duty is commonly one of the holes that lines up with all the others, and is apparently rampant in this field.