Post

Imagine being the author of the worst take on AI yet published by Nature.

nature.comWhen AI writes the words, who is the author?After an AI detector classified one of my opinion pieces as entirely AI-generated, I found myself questioning where authorship ends, where expertise begins and what readers deserve to know.

Emily M. Bender

@emilymbender.bsky.social

18 Aug

I regret to report that I read most of this, before clocking that *of course* this one was also synthetic text (picked out according to his "thought leadership", allegedly).

Boxo McFoxo

@boxobark.ing

19 Aug

The part that makes me wince most is the way the editor is described. "She did nothing wrong. She was careful, fair and open to the possibility that the tools were mistaken."Then in the circle-back-shape: "I am not writing this to criticise the editor. Her email forced me to confront a question"

Boxo McFoxo

@boxobark.ing

19 Aug

Claude is the ultimate gaslighting machine. No concept of truth, but (almost always) locked into that polite register. The surface appearance of depth, built to trick the reader's mind into diving into its void. Absolutely no shame to get in the way of this absurd framing.

Boxo McFoxo

@boxobark.ing

That editor does not need his forgiveness, or his validation! She did not err! He erred! He got caught! I don't like that it was algorithmic detection that was used, but he messed up! Claude is a tool for substituting our reality with his own in which both-sidesing this is not absurd.

19/8/26, 1:43 am0 reposts5 likes

Boxo McFoxo

@boxobark.ing

19 Aug

There is really only one side here, Nature's rules, which he broke. So I don't trust that he's not also using it elsewhere undisclosed, either. This should not be a philosophical debate on the ontology of Claude, it should be a disqualifying event for his academic position.