Event JSON
{
"id": "8371c0e5dae89b07f5b5a08e6ca3d06aec136bc102f90e5a4cd23151f86d67a4",
"pubkey": "092b313ebfc0a0caa4838fc8e84a10a64196ff16b2a61e64ee813c97090218ed",
"created_at": 1792848050,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"proxy",
"https://fediscience.org/@petersuber/117496089847767672",
"web"
],
[
"t",
"scholcomm"
],
[
"t",
"ai"
],
[
"t",
"peerreview"
],
[
"t",
"metaresearch"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://fediscience.org/users/petersuber/statuses/117496089847767672",
"activitypub"
],
[
"L",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"l",
"pink.momostr.activitypub:https://fediscience.org/users/petersuber/statuses/117496089847767672",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"-"
]
],
"content": "If you monitor the use of #AI tools in research, you might think (like me) that (1) they're incapable of top-notch #PeerReview, and (2) they're getting better fast. If so, it's time to grapple with an almost inevitable new study: \n\nFrom Gary King and Steven Worthington: \"We show that AI-generated article reviews are now better, by every measure we could construct, than reviews written by well-compensated human experts and judged to be of unusually high quality by journal editors and authors.\" \nhttps://gking.harvard.edu/files/peerless.pdf\n\n#Metaresearch #ScholComm",
"sig": "744986a2c4e4103b02371d800e5635a909a524eaf58f3cd4814b329d379a79218347cdff18c3677b24a5d594de750d04659a43f8d38f8a3f38a44b6632344348"
}