First, the fact we have moved this far with LLMs is incredible.

Second, I think the PhD paper example is a disingenuous example of capability. It's a cherry-picked iteration on a crude analysis of some papers that have done the work already with no peer-review. I can hear "but it developed novel metrics", etc. comments: no, it took patterns from its training data and applied the pattern to the prompt data without peer-review.

I think the fact the author had to prompt it with "make it better" is a failure of these LLMs, not a success, in that it has no actual understanding of what it takes to make a genuinely good paper. It's cargo-cult behavior: rolling a magic 8 ball until we are satisfied with the answer. That's not good practice, it's wishful thinking. This application of LLMs to research papers is causing a massive mess in the academic world because, unsurprisingly, the AI-practitioners have no-risk high-reward for uncorrected behavior:

- https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/04/science/04hs-science-pape...

- https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/04/science/letters-to-the-ed...