Stuff like this also makes me think there's a lot of AI usage we're just not seeing. I mean this is just colossally lazy. A halfwit intern could've confirmed that the sources were real. There are probably other offices that are already offloading most of the work to AI with more subtlety.
Reposted from Zach Weinersmith
Heh. www.theverge.com/news/676945/...

I would actually say the thing where they cite a source that doesn't back up their argument was going strong well before AI. In fact, it seems to be standard academic practice.

However, citing completely invented sources may be a new thing.

Comments