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 bananaflag on Monday July 20, 2026 @01:48PM (#48982215)

> It is because we are bad at writing in a scientific style, and american editors expect us to do it. With LLMs, we can write in basic sentences and tell the LLM the idea and it converts that to nice writing.

This is a sin.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How we measured AI writing across arXiv, and where the me... by exe34 on Monday July 20, 2026 @02:05PM (#48982510)

I feel like they should release the original before the llm chewed on it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How we measured AI writing across arXiv, and where the me... by JadeNB on Monday July 20, 2026 @02:05PM (#48982509)

Which part is a sin? Using LLMs to deal with a lack of English-language fluency? I am a scientist (actually a mathematician, if it matters), and, if that's the way to deal with the practical hegemony of English in the scientific literature, then I have no problem with it. Rather that than people with important ideas can't get them before the scientific community. As long as the authors personally check and stand behind the scientific content of their papers, what do I care how the exposition was produced, especially if the role of LLMs is properly disclosed?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How we measured AI writing across arXiv, and where the me... by never_inline on Tuesday July 21, 2026 @12:47AM (#48988155)

https://lists.isocpp.org/std-proposals/att-0486/Reply_to_Zer...

Here's a paper by a non native English speaker. The lack of the formal style doesn't cause any issue. Preciseness is what matters.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How we measured AI writing across arXiv, and where the me... by rcxdude on Tuesday July 21, 2026 @04:18AM (#48989526)

To your tastes maybe. Will it get through the editor's desk at a scientific journal as easily?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How we measured AI writing across arXiv, and where the me... by JadeNB on Wednesday July 22, 2026 @08:45AM (#49005923)

It seems to me like we're saying the same thing. I'm saying that there is a practical bias, as in, it's there in the real world whether we like it or not, that can prevent some papers from appearing just because of limitations on English-language fluency, not because of any lack of scientific content. One solution is to get rid of it, but that's a long-term project. If we have an immediate remedy that works, if the authors still take responsibility for the scientific content, and if the use of the tool that provides that remedy is responsibly disclosed, then it seems like a win all around, except perhaps that it makes the need for the longer-term solution less obvious.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How we measured AI writing across arXiv, and where the me... by jazzyjackson on Tuesday July 21, 2026 @10:10AM (#48992600)

It would be nice if scientists could write and publish in their first language. If a machine translation brings it to a wider audience fine, but the lack of disclosure of who authored the paper is a problem.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How we measured AI writing across arXiv, and where the me... by JadeNB on Wednesday July 22, 2026 @08:47AM (#49005940)

I'd way rather read a translation in which the author themselves has played a part, and at least nominally signed off on it, than one done on the fly with even less than usual guarantee of its correctness.

(I agree that authors should be able to publish in their first language, but I also note that the historical practicality has been that publication in non-dominant languages has resulted more in silos than in broadening access.)

[ Parent | on HN ]