Only 61% of the papers themselves were mostly human written.
Reviews
Papers
pull down to refresh
150 sats \ 2 replies \ @SimpleStacker 8h
I strongly suspect someone used AI to review my paper recently.
Very annoying.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @south_korea_ln 2h
Yeah same experience. Lots of useful feedback one the one hand, but some very weird feedback on the other hand that an actual expert would never ask. Paradoxically, it made it easier to write the rebuttal, but i would have expected better from Springer referees.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 5h
As in did they C&P the output?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @south_korea_ln 2h
How can one even fully generate a paper using AI. Those must be so bland and/or lack much novelty. Or i must suck at prompting.
Currently, i write the first draft myself, and then parse the paragraphs one by one to improve the flow. But still needs heavy personal editing of those improvements to keep my intended nuances.
reply