连线 wired 17-08-2023 文章：Use of AI Is Seeping Into Academic Journals—and It’s Proving Difficult to Detect 双语 中英 对照版
Use of AI Is Seeping Into Academic Journals—and It’s Proving Difficult to Detect
Ethics watchdogs are looking out for potentially undisclosed use of generative AI in scientific writing.
But there’s no foolproof way to catch it all yet.
IN ITS AUGUST edition, Resources Policy, an academic journal under the Elsevier publishing umbrella, featured a peer-reviewed study about how ecommerce has affected fossil fuel efficiency in developing nations.
But buried in the report was a curious sentence: “Please note that as an AI language model, I am unable to generate specific tables or conduct tests, so the actual results should be included in the table.”
The study’s three listed authors had names and university or institutional affiliations—they did not appear to be AI language models.
But for anyone who has played around in ChatGPT, that phrase may sound familiar: The generative AI chatbot often prefaces its statements with this caveat, noting its weaknesses in delivering some information.
但对于玩过 ChatGPT 的人来说，这句话可能听起来很熟悉：生成式人工智能聊天机器人经常在发言前加上这句话，指出它在提供某些信息时的弱点。
After a screenshot of the sentence was posted to X, formerly Twitter, by another researcher, Elsevier began investigating.
在另一位研究人员将该句子的截图发布到 X（前 Twitter）上后，爱思唯尔开始进行调查。
The publisher is looking into the use of AI in this article and “any other possible instances,” Andrew Davis, vice president of global communications at Elsevier, told WIRED in a statement.
爱思唯尔全球传播副总裁安德鲁-戴维斯（Andrew Davis）在一份声明中告诉《WIRED》，出版商正在调查这篇文章中人工智能的使用情况，以及 "任何其他可能的情况"。
Elsevier’s AI policies do not block the use of AI tools to help with writing, but they do require disclosure.
The publishing company uses its own in-house AI tools to check for plagiarism and completeness, but it does not allow editors to use outside AI tools to review papers.
The authors of the study did not respond to emailed requests for comment from WIRED, but Davis says Elsevier has been in contact with them, and that the researchers are cooperating.
“The author intended to use AI to improve the quality of the language (which is within our policy), and they accidentally left in those comments—which they intend to clarify,” Davis says.
The publisher declined to provide more information on how it would remedy the Resources Policy situation, citing the ongoing nature of the inquiry.
The rapid rise of generative AI has stoked anxieties across disciplines. High school teachers and college professors are worried about the potential for cheating. News organizations have been caught with shoddy articles penned by AI.
And now, peer-reviewed academic journals are grappling with submissions in which the authors may have used generative AI to write outlines, drafts, or even entire papers, but failed to make the AI use clear.
Journals are taking a patchwork approach to the problem. The JAMA Network, which includes titles published by the American Medical Association, prohibits listing artificial intelligence generators as authors and requires disclosure of their use.
期刊对这一问题采取了修修补补的办法。包括美国医学会出版的期刊在内的 JAMA 网络禁止将人工智能生成器列为作者，并要求披露其使用情况。
The family of journals produced by Science does not allow text, figures, images, or data generated by AI to be used without editors’ permission. PLOS ONE requires anyone who uses AI to detail what tool they used, how they used it, and ways they evaluated the validity of the generated information. Nature has banned images and videos that are generated by AI, and it requires the use of language models to be disclosed. Many journals’ policies make authors responsible for the validity of any information generated by AI.
Experts say there’s a balance to strike in the academic world when using generative AI—it could make the writing process more efficient and help researchers more clearly convey their findings.
But the tech—when used in many kinds of writing—has also dropped fake references into its responses, made things up, and reiterated sexist and racist content from the internet, all of which would be problematic if included in published scientific writing.
If researchers use these generated responses in their work without strict vetting or disclosure, they raise major credibility issues.
Not disclosing use of AI would mean authors are passing off generative AI content as their own, which could be considered plagiarism.
They could also potentially be spreading AI’s hallucinations, or its uncanny ability to make things up and state them as fact.
It’s a big issue, David Resnik, a bioethicist at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, says of AI use in scientific and academic work.
Still, he says, generative AI is not all bad—it could help researchers whose native language is not English write better papers.
“AI could help these authors improve the quality of their writing and their chances of having their papers accepted,” Resnik says.
But those who use AI should disclose it, he adds.
For now, it's impossible to know how extensively AI is being used in academic publishing, because there’s no foolproof way to check for AI use, as there is for plagiarism.
The Resources Policy paper caught a researcher’s attention because the authors seem to have accidentally left behind a clue to a large language model’s possible involvement.
“Those are really the tips of the iceberg sticking out,” says Elisabeth Bik, a science integrity consultant who runs the blog Science Integrity Digest. “I think this is a sign that it's happening on a very large scale.”
科学诚信顾问伊丽莎白-比克（Elisabeth Bik）经营着博客 "科学诚信文摘"（Science Integrity Digest），她说："这些只是冰山一角。"我认为这是一个迹象，表明这种现象正在大规模发生"。
In 2021, Guillaume Cabanac, a professor of computer science at the University of Toulouse in France, found odd phrases in academic articles, like “counterfeit consciousness” instead of “artificial intelligence.” He and a team coined the idea of looking for “tortured phrases,” or word soup in place of straightforward terms, as indicators that a document likely comes from text generators.
2021 年，法国图卢兹大学计算机科学教授纪尧姆-卡巴纳克（Guillaume Cabanac）在学术文章中发现了一些奇怪的短语，比如 "伪造意识 "而不是 "人工智能"。他和一个团队提出了寻找 "折磨人的短语 "的想法，或者用词汤来代替直白的术语，以此来表明文档很可能来自文本生成器。
He’s also on the lookout for generative AI in journals, and is the one who flagged the Resources Policy study on X.
他还关注期刊中的生成式人工智能，是他标出了《资源政策》关于 X 的研究报告。
Cabanac investigates studies that may be problematic, and he has been flagging potentially undisclosed AI use.
To protect scientific integrity as the tech develops, scientists must educate themselves, he says.
“We, as scientists, must act by training ourselves, by knowing about the frauds,” Cabanac says. “It’s a whack-a-mole game.
"卡巴纳克说："作为科学家，我们必须通过培训自己、了解欺诈行为来采取行动。这是一个 "打地鼠 "游戏。
There are new ways to deceive."
Tech advances since have made these language models even more convincing—and more appealing as a writing partner. In July, two researchers used ChatGPT to write an entire research paper in an hour to test the chatbot’s abilities to compete in the scientific publishing world.
此后的技术进步让这些语言模型更有说服力，作为写作伙伴也更有吸引力。今年七月，两位研究人员使用 ChatGPT 在一小时内写出了整篇研究论文，以测试聊天机器人在科学出版界的竞争能力。
It wasn’t perfect, but prompting the chatbot did pull together a paper with solid analysis.
That was a study to evaluate ChatGPT, but it shows how the tech could be used by paper mills—companies that churn out scientific papers on demand—to create more questionable content.
这是一项评估 ChatGPT 的研究，但它显示了造纸厂--按需生产科学论文的公司--如何利用这项技术来创造更多有问题的内容。
Paper mills are used by researchers and institutions that may feel pressure to publish research but who don’t want to spend the time and resources to conduct their own original work.
With AI, this process could become even easier.
AI-written papers could also draw attention away from good work by diluting the pool of scientific literature.
And the issues could reach beyond text generators—Bik says she also worries about AI-generated images, which could be manipulated to create fraudulent research. It can be difficult to prove such images are not real.
Some researchers want to crack down on undisclosed AI writing, to screen for it just as journals might screen for plagiarism.
In June, Heather Desaire, a professor of chemistry at the University of Kansas, was an author on a study demonstrating a tool that can differentiate with 99 percent accuracy between science writing produced by a human and entries produced by ChatGPT.
今年 6 月，堪萨斯大学化学教授希瑟-德赛尔（Heather Desaire）是一项研究的作者之一，该研究展示了一种工具，能以 99% 的准确率区分人类撰写的科学文章和 ChatGPT 制作的条目。
Desaire says the team sought to build a highly accurate tool, “and the best way to do that is to focus on a narrow type of writing.” Other AI writing detection tools billed as “one-size fits all” are usually less accurate.
德赛尔说，该团队试图打造一款高精确度的工具，"而做到这一点的最好办法就是专注于一种狭窄的写作类型"。其他标榜 "一刀切 "的人工智能写作检测工具通常不太准确。
The study found that ChatGPT typically produces less complex content than humans, is more general in its references (using terms like others, instead of specifically naming groups), and uses fewer types of punctuation. Human writers were more likely to use words like however, although, and but. But the study only looked at a small data set of Perspectives articles published in Science. Desaire says more work is needed to expand the tool’s capabilities in detecting AI-writing across different journals.
The team is “thinking more about how scientists—if they wanted to use it—would actually use it,” Desaire says, “and verifying that we can still detect the difference in those cases.”
研究小组 "更多考虑的是，如果科学家们想使用它，他们会如何实际使用它，"Desaire 说，"并验证我们在这些情况下是否仍能检测到差异。
All the content is for demonstration only, we do not store the files and after reading you we ask you to buy a printed version of the magazine.