How we measured AI writing across arXiv, and where the measurement breaks

Re:How we measured AI writing across arXiv, and where the me... by locknitpicker on Monday July 20, 2026 @01:11PM (#48981678)

> My opinion is: if it makes communicating research more effective, while not reducing the quality of the output substantially, I see no issue.

That's a big if. ArXiv is not peer reviewed and LLMs basically interpolate and extrapolate text, which makes them essentially fluff generators. Even in the most charitable interpretation, LLMs enable those with nothing to say to say nothing while meeting surface-level style guides.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How we measured AI writing across arXiv, and where the me... by dopamine_daddy on Monday July 20, 2026 @01:16PM (#48981745)

We can't know if real science is happening in the background but I'd wager that the majority of these papers is not complete slop but real findings with AI generated text used to communicate it. If it was just straight slop I would be really worried.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How we measured AI writing across arXiv, and where the me... by lelanthran on Monday July 20, 2026 @02:50PM (#48983209)

> We can't know if real science is happening in the background but I'd wager that the majority of these papers is not complete slop but real findings with AI generated text used to communicate it. If it was just straight slop I would be really worried.

Why don't you read them and see? The ones I looked at were clear slop.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How we measured AI writing across arXiv, and where the me... by locknitpicker on Monday July 20, 2026 @01:22PM (#48981854)

> (...) but I'd wager that the majority of these papers is not complete slop (...)

That's a huge assumption, and one that goes against the whole notion of using LLMs to generate text. AI slop is by far the norm.

[ Parent | on HN ]