Credibility of Artificial Intelligence Enabled Content - A Question Mark

Kiron, I so agree with you. The forums and platforms in which I see such blatantly copied responses from some AI engine is crazily increasing. Folks dont even copy edit or even check if the response is relevant or no. Its just putting something there vs "a value added information".

This is a bane of AI and worst, it is going to increase.

How will the checkers arrest this?

Keith, you are so correct. I myself get disengaged when I suspect and am almost certain it's an AI-generated response. I get disengaged and don't read it.
I now see students doing the same with their assignments. What society are we building where there is ease of information furnishing but of a little value!

Eric, exactly my thought. If I ask a question or seek a content from someone, i am almost sure that 1. it will come and 2. it will be generated by ChatGPT. Then why dont I ask Chatgpt instead of asking these folks and getting "some" responses from them?

In healthcare, where research is paramount and creativity and value addition is critical, how does one believe the research? I am sure notable journals such as Lancet, JAMA must have some method to curtail this madness.

I found the following two JAMA guidances concerning AI use; they basically say submitters and peer reviewers should be upfront on their use of AI when creating content or reviewing work. I feel these guidances are practically worthless, as I doubt someone who would use AI as a shortcut for actual research would have any qualms lying about it. The guidance for reviewers includes the following: “Please remember that you are ultimately responsible for all of the content of this review.”. However, this has little weight unless there are defined legal penalties for publishing improperly reviewed research.
In the past we could reasonably rely on peer review to verify the accuracy of research, but if reviewers can also use AI that’s no longer the case. I think the best way to ensure journals like JAMA remain credible is for the medical community to demand they do so, stressing the importance of the journals in edifying medical personnel around the globe, and the negative impacts that would inevitably result from the dissemination of incorrect information, including loss of human lives.

Guidance for Authors, Peer Reviewers, and Editors on Use of AI, Language Models, and Chatbots https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2807956

Reporting Use of AI in Research and Scholarly Publication—JAMA Network Guidance
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2816213

I think it's an absolute tragedy for students to use AI to generate their assignments. Thinking your way through the problem is how you generate those neural pathways where we develop our own mental models that provide deeper understandings of how things really work.

My professional writing process usually starts with many pages of notes that I then spend hours organizing, condensing, and explaining out-loud so I can build more mental pathways and hear how it "flows". I would love to use AI to organize my notes and fix long awkward sentences, but the underlying thoughts, and the progression of how I bring you from point A to B are still my own.

In the business world, when trying to solve problems one of our biggest obstacles is often that we have very little data to guide us. If you try to draw inferences from a very small dataset, you wind up with outputs that are very biased based on the small sample. I see that with PMI's Project Infinity where answers to my questions cite only 1 or 2 articles, and if it's one then the answer goes off track trying to build a longer answer with little relevant information.. To dig deeper, it becomes a matter of deciding what variables need to be investigated in greater depth to provide the more complete picture of cause and effect. To do that requires being grounded in the underlying principles.

AI can help people quickly gather and organize information on the current state of the art. If you want to expand the current body of knowledge however, that requires original insights. You can't get there purely focused on the rear-view mirror.

Eric, I agree with you. Both makers and checkers should be considered when the credibility of the content is at stake. I agree with the three recommendations you have given. One's conscience should play out to support the "right" information and not just "some" information.

I don't see any mandates that could be practical. Ethics lie in our own behaviour, not in papers or documents.

This discussion is getting interesting!

Keith, I agree with you. What I fail to see is the need to quickly gather the information. I agree with you about the lack of sufficient data to provide credible information.

However, we may need to look at more sources to get that information, and perhaps this specific resource is not the right person to gather those insights. Maybe he/she needs help vs finding some superficial information and sending it out. I think getting to the original insights trumps any day. Would you agree?

I so agree with you, and most do, I guess.

But then, I wonder if our content decaying over a period of time, and who is responsible? what legacy are we giving our generations from a credible information? Would love to know your thoughts.