With AI like ChatGPT subtly influencing the language of biomedical research, it’s essential to question the role these tools play in scientific communication. Are they making information more accessible or skewing the message? Explore this conversation sparked by “454 Hints That a Chatbot Wrote Part of a Biomedical Researcher’s Paper” by The New York Times.
At iMedix, we value empowering individuals with trustworthy, personalized health information. How do you see AI reshaping our understanding and sharing of medical insights? Join our community to discuss these changes and get accurate health advice tailored to you.
AI can be helpful for fixing grammar or organizing ideas, but it worries me when it starts writing actual research content. Science needs human critical thinking, not just polished words. How do we even know if the facts are accurate?
Honestly, AI tools are a double-edged sword for research papers. Yeah, they can help non-native English speakers polish their writing and maybe summarize complex stuff more clearly. But I’ve seen some generated text that sounds smooth but is either vague or just… off? Like it’s mimicking science talk without real depth.
The bigger worry is if people start relying on it to generate findings or spin data a certain way. Science’s already got enough reproducibility issues—last thing we need is chatbot hallucinations muddying the water.
That NYT piece hits hard—400+ papers with AI fingerprints? Wild. Should journals require disclosure when AI’s used to draft sections? Curious what others think.