What they are doing is plain cheating the system to get their 3 conference papers so they can get their $150k+ job at FAANG. It's plain cheating with no value.

> Should people disclose spellcheckers powered by AI?

Thank you for that perfect example of a strawman argument! No, spellcheckers that use AI is not the main concern behind disclosing the use of AI in generating scientific papers, government reports, or any large block of nonfiction text that you paid for that is supposed to make to sense.

People are accountable for the results they produce using AI. So a scientist is responsible for made up sources in their paper, which is plain fraud.

In general we're pretty good at drawing a line between purely editorial stuff like using a spellchecker, or even the services a professional editor (no need to acknowledge), and independent intellectual contribution (must be acknowledged). There's no slippery slope.

>Pretty soon every knowledge worker will use AI every day.

Maybe? There's certainly a push to force the perception of inevitability.

False equivalence. This isn't about "using AI" it's about having an AI pretend to do your job.

What people are pissed about is the fact their tax dollars fund fake research. It's just fraud, pure and simple. And fraud should be punished brutally, especially in these cases, because the long tail of negative effects produces enormous damage.

"Pretty soon every knowledge worker will use AI every day" is a wild statement considering the reporting that most companies deploying AI solutions are seeing little to no benefit, but also, there's a pretty obvious gap between spell checkers and tools that generate large parts of the document for you

nice job moving the goalpost from "hallucinated the research/data" to "spellchecker error"

[dead]