: “I’m sorry, Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that” Part 2

In the WYPT session at the Baltimore ACA meeting in 2023, I instigated a discussion on the use/abuse/future of AI generated text in publications (and elsewhere). One of the main take-aways from that talk was the prospect of AI detecting itself: that is, AI applications that can detect with some level of accuracy and precision whether a piece of text was generated by human or AI. Since then, there have been such routines developed and tested. One (of many) report did a fairly thorough analysis of the most common software: (W.H. Walters, “The Effectiveness of Software Designed to Detect AI-Generated Writing: A Comparison of 16 AI Text Detectors” https://doi.org/10.1515/opis-2022-0158 ) This talk will present some conclusions from that report and pose some questions on how to proceed: Can there be safeguards to distinguish AI text reliably? Can these contribute to defining potential legitimate uses of AI-generated text while still protecting copyright and IP? To what extent might we be able to use AI-generated text to prepare publications, reviews, grant proposals, etc.

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Structural Dynamics
Published
2025-09-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1063/4.0000863
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

: “I’m sorry, Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that” Part 2

Structural Dynamics
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
article

: “I’m sorry, Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that” Part 2

article en

Abstract

In the WYPT session at the Baltimore ACA meeting in 2023, I instigated a discussion on the use/abuse/future of AI generated text in publications (and elsewhere). One of the main take-aways from that talk was the prospect of AI detecting itself: that is, AI applications that can detect with some level of accuracy and precision whether a piece of text was generated by human or AI. Since then, there have been such routines developed and tested. One (of many) report did a fairly thorough analysis of the most common software: (W.H. Walters, “The Effectiveness of Software Designed to Detect AI-Generated Writing: A Comparison of 16 AI Text Detectors” https://doi.org/10.1515/opis-2022-0158 ) This talk will present some conclusions from that report and pose some questions on how to proceed: Can there be safeguards to distinguish AI text reliably? Can these contribute to defining potential legitimate uses of AI-generated text while still protecting copyright and IP? To what extent might we be able to use AI-generated text to prepare publications, reviews, grant proposals, etc.

Structural DynamicsVol. 12(5_Supplement)
University of Waterloo (CA)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 51%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.