The study suggests authors are using AI as a writing aid, not to generate their papers. It's sort of interesting, in that it points out that "yeah, even scientists need grammar checking and help re-wording stuff sometimes." However, it's not the same thing as finding scientific papers with hallucinated data, charts, etc. That is a very real problem but it's a symptom of the larger issue of fraud in scientific papers. AI is orthogonal to that.

This includes Word grammar suggesting and spell correct.

I glimpsed though the article and I didn't see it.

It said it used frequency of words for determination of AI usage.

Did it consider that AI is mostly trained of those papers and thus AI detection methods could not be as accurate as thought by the ones making this analysis?

Did the just considered general "generic AI repeated words" or did the actually used a frequency analysis of the actual fingerprint left by the LMM that companies put there for forensic analysis (and that I don't ever know of the companies are publishing the signatures they use).

Using AI to investigate AI’s involvement. Who is responsible for evaluating the validity of that investigation? If AI is used to correct formatting, is that considered AI involvement? In that case, would a document written in a neat, well-formatted manner be considered the work of AI?

I don’t see why it matters whether you use a pencil, a ballpoint pen, or a keyboard to write a document—I simply don’t understand the rationale behind the stance that AI should not be used.

And? AI is a tool, so whether it's an issue depends on the extent of its use.

The latest study also found that LLM use was more frequent in abstracts, introductions and discussion sections than in methods and results sections.

That's really not an issue provided the papers were proof read by the researchers.

a lot meta-studies will, in the future, have to exclude a range of AI slop years.

"Biotech" has been a grift for a looong time.

related: Biotech is Godzilla

Trained AI can be pretty useful at writing. People just need to actually read and edit it.

I made a website about a sport I knew nothing about. I was using AI to write the articles. I would cross reference the information against other websites on that sport and edit my AI article to make it more natural. The end goal was affiliated marketing but I lost interest after a while. Anytime you see an article like "the 10 best.." "the best hacks for..." etc, the author most likely made the article like I was doing.

Fortunately Google has shot themselves in the foot because nobody can find anything of value with their search engine anymore. Googles AI has significantly decreased traffic to all websites as well.