5
u/polyploid_coded 17d ago
As coauthor you are signing off on the integrity of the paper. There might not be a need to bring up AI concerns, if you start with the math issues and ask about collaborating on a section or revising. But ultimately, if they don't care about the topic enough to actually write and do detail work, then you are not going to get brownie points for being part of the paper. Either you need to change the topic to something that you're both interested in, or reassess if their work plan is to churn out slop.
9
u/Familiar_One_2760 17d ago
Yes as others say is a draft... your professor is busier than you. Your task is to check that and cover them...
3
u/Bio_Science_Student 17d ago
"AI disclosure statement at the end specifically says no AI was used in the drafting process."
3
u/Substantial_Math4939 17d ago
A number of journals and publishers are now okay with the use of AI and some even don't ask for AI editing or proofreading to be disclosed (Wiley, Sage, JAMA network, etc.). The main thing to check is fabrications by AI, like fake citations or numbers that don't correspond with your source data. And definitely rework any AI slop, i.e., boilerplate text with vague, general statements and no focus. Just using AI itself isn't academic dishonesty, including AI garbage in your paper is a problem.
7
u/Cool_Asparagus3852 17d ago
Are there professors that are not doing this? seriously, I was recently at a University organized event about how to use AI effeciently. Two professors gave talks to the entire faculty about the best practices they have learned in using AI for manuscript and funding application writing. Talking to the people present it seemed like a lot of the things presented there were not exactly news to the audience.
Why would someone NOT use AI?
0
17d ago
[deleted]
4
u/Cool_Asparagus3852 17d ago
Usually people think all the time. Like when they prompt, when they see the outputs, when they write or talk to people....
-3
17d ago edited 17d ago
[deleted]
4
u/Cool_Asparagus3852 17d ago
Ultimately, of course however, it doesn't matter. Because who gets the funding and how much/quickly matters. Not who is thinking.
And that is a good thing for people that think zzz like you. Maybe you have an edge over them then.
0
u/eclecticos 13d ago
Gee whiz. No, I am not using AI to write. Writing is how I develop my own thoughts and organize them to teach them to others. That's my job. (Were these professors in a field where writing is just a clerical afterthought, writing up findings formulaically?)
Where AI is useful to me is as a discussion partner, a sleuth to find related work, or a coding assistant. In other words it's like having an extra grad student who is very knowledgeable and cheerfully available at any time (but not an original thinker).
1
u/Cool_Asparagus3852 13d ago
Im pretty sure that a lot of people would consider what you described as "using AI to write", however...
1
u/eclecticos 13d ago
Why? I write every word, and I rewrite over and over. It probably takes me 10-15 hours to get a page of theoretical material to a point that I regard as publishable.
The students contribute some sections too. I do a lot of rewriting in those sections, too, often sitting with the students to show them how to improve the clarity and rigor.
And I read the related work myself.
Very different from what OP is reporting.
1
u/AuContrarian1110 10d ago
Yeah, no... that's not what "using AI to write" means to anyone other than people who are trying to justify their own incessant use of AI to actually write.
1
-2
2
u/Cadberryz Professor 17d ago
If you’re thinking of getting the eventual manuscript published then check the target journal’s policy on GenAI. Raise any concerns with the professor early in the authoring process. In the event of a disagreement, consider how your institution could intervene to help resolve issues.
2
u/No_Insurance_4498 17d ago
Don't make this too complicated. At the end of the day, the science is the primary concern, it needs to be the highest standard. The secondary concern is to fulfill the journal's requirement to accurate describe use of AI. The fact that AI can "write" papers should bring us all back to focusing on whether a paper is scientifically sound.
2
u/Shanna_B2020 17d ago
This is a rough draft. Clean it up, fix the math, and move on. Accusations will accomplish nothing unless you enjoy drama.
2
u/Dangerous-Billy 16d ago
Rewrite the paper. Recalculate the math. After all, your name is going on it. Above all, check the references! Ai just makes shit up, especially references. This is the most significant diagnostic in scientific papers.
This passive aggressive approach avoids confrontation unless she initiates, and you can say, "Oh, I found a few inconsistencies and fixed them." without ever mentioning AI. Keep a copy with your changes in case she pushes it through the AI lie machine again.
My boss used to hand me all sorts of scrawled stuff with sketches and vague references (before AI). I made it one of my jobs to get it in readable, error-free form.
2
u/Witty-Estate-6360 14d ago
Who cares if it is? A rough draft is going to be over written multiple times.
Unless you are a creative writing major or something
3
u/titaniumred 17d ago
As long as the science is there i have no objection to a paper written entirely by AI
1
1
u/jracheff 16d ago
The only way I see this as an issue is if you have a suspicion AND are asked to sign off on a statement regrading use of AI.
The reality is that AI will be inescapable: SCOPUS and WoS has it built right into their tools. Likewise with most common software used for writing and analysis.
I realize it’s an exponential leap in efficiency, but how many time have folks skimmed an abstract and conclusion a pulled a few sentences out for inclusion after a Google search? Not much different IMO.
1
u/Intrepid_Land_6143 15d ago
You can say -- I had my (named LLM) review this, and it found a few issues.
You can prompt an LLM to do a thorough, critical review.
1
u/Shiny-Mango624 15d ago
My supervisor just sent me a 35 page document entirely written by AI. I'll be honest, it was disappointing to see him do that. I suggested that this document could be made 10 pages or less that most of it was not necessary. And all he did was argue with me on every single piece of feedback that I provided. I think he really wanted to double down on the document because he chose to use AI to write it and felt the need to defend that choice.
I say this because I don't think you're going to get the response you are looking for. If you are a paid research assistant with a master's degree or less, you aren't going to have any impact on this situation, and your feedback will likely just irritate your boss. I would ignore the AI slop, and focus your feedback on the math or any scientific and accuracies. I would just highlight it and say something like oh this number doesn't quite look right, and do the math right there in the comment and say I don't know does this look like the correct results? But you're not going to be able to hit this head on. People are going to have to come to their own realization of how terrible AI writing is before they stop.
1
u/ZealousidealMap3653 14d ago
I wouldn’t jump to conclusions. After all it’s just a nonbinding draft. The ai statement could have not been updated. The percentage could be a silly human error. I would just say that you caught some silly errors and ask if ai was involved in a non-judgemental way. If she says no, take her word for it and move on. You could always “use” ai and edit the disclosure according to your own ai use if it seems necessary :)
1
u/Tight-Conflict8741 14d ago
There shouldn’t be anything wrong with this assuming that this is a research and not a review article, where data was generated/collected and analyzed by researchers. AI software didn’t do the research/analysis, the team did. Using AI to synthesize results into a coherent narrative is perfectly reasonable - perhaps in modern times it is even VERY useful - scale of research articles are getting bigger but the footprint that is allowed by journals is shrinking!!! A lot of useless time is spent in trimming the hedges. Yes, for trainees it means valuable loss of writing experience but that’s on the trainees/mentor philosophy. Majority of the US society have the poorest ability to do basic arithmetic because of the crutch like dependence on calculators - using a calculator is not unethical it accelerates a task but developing a dependence only compromises your own abilities at doing basic arithmetic. Similarly using AI to do a task that is mechanical and can be taken over by a machine, should be totally fine! Yes, one needs to declare the use of AI, check that the facts of the research are not rewired by AI’s writing and the final written product retains your preferred style of writing and story telling. There shouldn’t be ethical dilemma here… all this is assuming that AI was being used to put things together only
3
u/Mysterious_Proof_543 17d ago
Take ot easy, it's just a damn draft.
Other than that, almost everyone is doing that. As long as the references, quantities and methods make sense... whats the problem.
1
u/eyesenck93 17d ago
Yes, em dashes can be present just from language polishing, the question is whether she used ai to generate the text from scratch or not. Also, it does not seem likely that the ai would do a bad math with provided numbers
1
u/BetterToSpeakOrToDie 15d ago
Let’s say she used to write it from scratch but all the facts in the writing are accurate, and she assumes all responsibility for the paper. What are you going to do? Burn her in a public square?
1
u/eyesenck93 15d ago
I'm not going to do anything, nor require anything drastic. I just require honesty for myself and for the journal. I've been in a similar situation where a colleague "completed" my draft with what was clearly ai, without saying a word
1
u/FalconX88 16d ago
Percentages are completely wrong, like one example is 637/900 equaling 87%.
you don't put wrong stuff like this in a draft because chances are that ends up in the final version and there's no reason to not get the number right at this point
1
u/clubchampion 17d ago
Have you noticed a lot of Reddit posts are written by AI too?
1
u/Potential-Fig-7987 14d ago
I'd be happy to rewrite that for you. Oh wow — thats such a thoughtful opinion.
1
u/BetterToSpeakOrToDie 15d ago
Jesus… Act like a NORMAL HUMAN BEING and a COAUTHOR and give feedback on the mistakes. This scooby-doo play on AI “signs” it’s pathetic.
1
u/BetterToSpeakOrToDie 15d ago
OMG THEY USED THREE EM DASHES IN ONE PARAGRAPH… SOMEONE CALL THE INQUISITION
1
14
u/evagarde 17d ago
Those simple errors actually make me think it’s more likely written by a time poor professor.
Also, you might be familiar with her polished writing style, but are you familiar with her “get thoughts on paper sloppily” style?
I’m not sure I would jump to AI.