> The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
> Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Which is good.
But it makes me wonder about “wherever possible”. In which case wouldn’t it be possible and why would it remain if it’s not possible?
I view it as: each time you answer the same question you are forced to reincorporate everything you’ve learned since the last time you’ve answered it. Which makes you reassess your chain of thought and maybe come to a different conclusion. And thereby learning something new.
Ultimately it’s up to the author to make that explicit choice. I think that AI does and will enhance writing and depth and breadth of analysis one could perform. But, to be trustworthy, people will need to either lay out all cards on the table and/or work on other ways to gain trust over time. Maybe people need to provide some context to communicate what model was used and in which ways. What % of final output is AI vs author. I mean, if I see 100% composed by human author stated somewhere then there’s my cue to at the very least learn a little about the author. Certainly more complexity and discernment for readers. Depressing? In some ways maybe; but I’m kind of optimistic. Imagine what Tolkien could worldbuild armed with AI.. but then it wouldn’t be Tolkien.
Significant AI smell in this write up. As a result, my current reflex is to immediately stop reading. Not judgement on the actual analysis and human effort which went in. It’s just that the other context is missing.
> Generative AI statement
> The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
> Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Which is good.
But it makes me wonder about “wherever possible”. In which case wouldn’t it be possible and why would it remain if it’s not possible?
edits: formatting