mirror of
https://github.com/jackyzha0/quartz.git
synced 2025-12-28 07:14:05 -06:00
30 lines
2.8 KiB
Markdown
30 lines
2.8 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
title: Academic Integrity and AI
|
|
tags:
|
|
- ai
|
|
- misc
|
|
- seedling
|
|
date: 2024-09-14
|
|
lastmod: 2024-09-14
|
|
draft: true
|
|
---
|
|
Recent studies reveal that the use of AI is becoming increasingly common in academic writings. On [Google Scholar](https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/gpt-fabricated-scientific-papers-on-google-scholar-key-features-spread-and-implications-for-preempting-evidence-manipulation/), and on [arXiv](https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.13812); but most shockingly, on platforms like Elsevier's [Science Direct](http://web.archive.org/web/20240315011933/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2468023024002402) (check the Introduction). Elsevier supposedly prides itself on its comprehensive review process, which ensures that its publications are of the highest quality. More generally, the academic *profession* insists that it possesses what I call integrity: rigor, attention to detail, and authority or credibility. But AI is casting light on a greater issue: **does it**?
|
|
## What is integrity?
|
|
==specific aspects I can talk about in the framings==
|
|
## Competing framings
|
|
I think there are two ways of framing the emergence of the problem.
|
|
### 1: Statistical (not dataset) bias and sample size
|
|
The first framing is simple proportionality. Journal submission numbers have increased rapidly in the past few years: [atherosclerosis](https://www.atherosclerosis-journal.com/article/S0021-9150(13)00456-5/abstract)
|
|
![[Attachments/papers.png|graph showing almost an exponential trend in paper submission from 1970 (about 5 million) to 2013 (over 40 million).]]
|
|
|
|
I'm not interested in doing the statistical analysis (especially because it would probably require creating a quantitative analysis metric for integrity, which I super don't want to spend time on), but this is just one hypothesis.
|
|
|
|
==barriers to access broken by AI==
|
|
### 2: We've Always Done It This Way
|
|
And second, which I find more persuasive (but shocking), is the question: has it just always been like this?
|
|
|
|
==is the thought of academic integrity just a facade meant to preserve the barriers in the first reading? Detail requires (paid) time, intellectual rigor requires education, credibility requires experience and access to information...==
|
|
## Further Reading
|
|
In my view, a critical component of academic or purportedly informative works is the establishment of authority/credibility in a way that's verifiable by other people. I have an incomplete [[Essays/plagiarism|essay on plagiarism]] where I explore this facet of academic integrity.
|
|
|
|
I subscribe to a style of writing called "academ*ish*" voice on this site, documented by [Ink and Switch](https://inkandswitch.notion.site/Academish-Voice-0d8126b3be5545d2a21705ceedb5dd45). Pointing out all the ways that even this less-rigorous style is fundamentally incompatible with AI-generated text is left as an exercise for the reader. |