Academics Split on AI Disclosure Rules for Papers
NLP researchers debate requiring disclosure of AI assistance in papers.
Yoav Goldberg posted that he does not care which parts of a paper's ideation, research, proof, implementation or writing came from AI, since humans take responsibility by signing the work. Bhuwan Dhingra replied that reviewers need accountability and that a disclosure helps spot cases where a paper appears fully AI-generated yet claims only light editing. The exchange revives an ongoing conversation among researchers about whether mandatory statements on AI use would raise standards or add little value.
Combined views
18K
2 posts, first seen 13h ago
Reactions from ranked influencers
2 posts
re "disclosing AI use in papers" discussion that re-emerges: please lets not do it as a reviewer or a reader of a paper, i do not care what part of the ideation, research, proof, implementation or writing was done by AI, and how the credit is split between the AI and human…
As a reviewer though i need some accountability to hold the reviewer to. If the paper is clearly 100% AI written, and the disclosure says “lightly edited / polished” that’s a weakness I can point out. More than that, having a disclosure raises the bar a little bit higher;…
