Use of AI Is Seeping Into Academic Journals—and It’s Proving Difficult to Detect
人工智能正渗入学术期刊--而且难以察觉

Ethics watchdogs are looking out for potentially undisclosed use of generative AI in scientific writing.
伦理监督机构正在关注在科学写作中使用生成式人工智能的潜在隐患。

But there’s no foolproof way to catch it all yet.
但目前还没有一种万无一失的方法来捕捉这一切。

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.
爱思唯尔（Elsevier）旗下的学术期刊《资源政策》（Resources Policy）在其八月版中刊登了一项经同行评审的研究，内容涉及电子商务如何影响发展中国家的化石燃料效率。

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.”
但报告中却有一句奇怪的话"请注意，作为一个人工智能语言模型，我无法生成具体的表格或进行测试，因此实际结果应包含在表格中"。

The study’s three listed authors had names and university or institutional affiliations—they did not appear to be AI language models.
该研究的三位列名作者都有姓名和大学或机构隶属关系，他们似乎并不是人工智能语言模型。

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.
爱思唯尔的人工智能政策并不阻止使用人工智能工具来帮助写作，但要求公开信息。

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.
该出版公司使用自己的内部人工智能工具来检查抄袭和完整性，但不允许编辑使用外部人工智能工具来审阅论文。

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.
该研究的作者没有回复《WIRED》通过电子邮件发出的置评请求，但戴维斯说，爱思唯尔一直在与他们联系，研究人员也在配合。

“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.
"戴维斯说："作者本想使用人工智能来提高语言质量（这符合我们的政策），但他们不小心留下了这些评论--他们打算澄清这些评论。

The publisher declined to provide more information on how it would remedy the Resources Policy situation, citing the ongoing nature of the inquiry.
该出版商以调查仍在进行中为由，拒绝提供更多关于如何纠正《资源政策》情况的信息。

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.
生成式人工智能的迅速崛起激起了各学科的焦虑。高中教师和大学教授担心会出现作弊现象。新闻机构也被发现有人工智能撰写的伪劣文章。

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.
现在，同行评审的学术期刊正在处理这样的投稿，在这些投稿中，作者可能使用了生成式人工智能来撰写提纲、草稿甚至整篇论文，但却没有明确说明人工智能的用途。

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.
未经编辑许可，《科学》系列期刊不允许使用人工智能生成的文本、数字、图像或数据。PLOS ONE》要求任何使用人工智能的人详细说明他们使用了什么工具、如何使用以及如何评估所生成信息的有效性。自然》禁止使用人工智能生成的图片和视频，并要求公开语言模型的使用情况。许多期刊的政策要求作者对人工智能生成的任何信息的有效性负责。

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.
专家们说，在学术界使用生成式人工智能需要取得一种平衡--它可以提高写作过程的效率，帮助研究人员更清晰地表达他们的研究成果。

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.
但是，当这项技术被用于多种写作时，它也会在回复中加入虚假的参考资料、胡编乱造、重申互联网上的性别歧视和种族主义内容，如果将这些内容写入公开发表的科学著作中，就会产生问题。

If researchers use these generated responses in their work without strict vetting or disclosure, they raise major credibility issues.
如果研究人员在工作中使用这些生成的回复而不进行严格审查或披露，就会产生重大的可信度问题。

Not disclosing use of AI would mean authors are passing off generative AI content as their own, which could be considered plagiarism.
不公开人工智能的使用情况意味着作者将人工智能生成的内容冒充为自己的内容，这可能被视为剽窃。

They could also potentially be spreading AI’s hallucinations, or its uncanny ability to make things up and state them as fact.
它们也有可能是人工智能的幻觉，或者是人工智能编造事情并将其说成事实的神奇能力。

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.
美国国家环境健康科学研究所的生物伦理学家大卫-雷斯尼克（David Resnik）在谈到人工智能在科学和学术工作中的应用时说，这是一个大问题。

Still, he says, generative AI is not all bad—it could help researchers whose native language is not English write better papers.
不过，他说，生成式人工智能也不全是坏事--它可以帮助母语不是英语的研究人员写出更好的论文。

“AI could help these authors improve the quality of their writing and their chances of having their papers accepted,” Resnik says.
"人工智能可以帮助这些作者提高写作质量和论文被接受的几率，"Resnik 说。

But those who use AI should disclose it, he adds.
但他补充说，那些使用人工智能的人应该公开它。

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.
目前，我们还不可能知道人工智能在学术出版中的应用有多广泛，因为还没有万无一失的方法来检查人工智能的使用情况，就像检查剽窃一样。

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.
资源政策》这篇论文引起了一位研究人员的注意，因为作者似乎无意中留下了一个大型语言模型可能参与其中的线索。

“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.
卡巴纳克对可能存在问题的研究进行调查，他一直在关注可能未公开的人工智能使用情况。

To protect scientific integrity as the tech develops, scientists must educate themselves, he says.
他说，随着技术的发展，为了保护科学的完整性，科学家必须进行自我教育。

“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."
有新的欺骗方式"。

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.
这并不完美，但聊天机器人的提示确实汇集了一篇有可靠分析的论文。

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.
研究人员和机构可能会感到有发表研究成果的压力，但又不想花费时间和资源来开展自己的原创工作，于是就会使用造纸厂。

With AI, this process could become even easier.
有了人工智能，这一过程可能会变得更加容易。

AI-written papers could also draw attention away from good work by diluting the pool of scientific literature.
人工智能撰写的论文还可能会稀释科学文献库，从而吸引人们对优秀作品的关注。

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.
问题可能不止于文本生成器--比克说，她还担心人工智能生成的图像，因为这些图像可能会被篡改，从而产生虚假的研究结果。要证明这些图像不是真实的可能很困难。

Some researchers want to crack down on undisclosed AI writing, to screen for it just as journals might screen for plagiarism.
一些研究人员希望打击未披露的人工智能写作，就像期刊筛查剽窃一样。

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.
研究发现，ChatGPT 制作的内容通常没有人类那么复杂，在引用时也更笼统（使用类似他人的术语，而不是具体点名群体），而且使用的标点符号类型也更少。人类作者更倾向于使用however、although和but等词。但这项研究只研究了一小部分发表在《科学》杂志上的《观点》文章。德赛尔说，还需要做更多的工作来扩展该工具在不同期刊上检测人工智能写作的能力。

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。

注：WIRED杂志最新一期PDF格式已传到会员区

• 长期阅读杂志可众筹会员(学生优惠)：点击查看

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.