Uploaded June 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
AI users are so deluded that they think AI is going to save the world with their "knowledge."
// The conversation is no longer about which journal and what purpose. It's about developing tools that are able to produce the best knowledge possible.
That implies that what you produced is "best knowledge." AI does not produce the "best knowledge." We do. All that AI did is just regurgitate what we write, and if what we write is wrong, we're screwed. AI writing will always be mediocre because they are homogenous and will always direct to the most average writing quality. What's the point of "writing" the "best knowledge" if the authors don't even understand what they're writing?
// If an LLM like Claude can lead us to knowledge that ends up curing a disease, will we cure the disease or throw a self-righteous tantrum?
Claude will not lead you to knowledge that ends up curing diseases. No AI will. Humans doing their own research and writing their own papers will lead to the cure. New research requires new data, one that AI does not have. That's where you come in. AI might help you analyze the data or point out errors and flaws, but you still must get the data yourself. AI might be able to point you to the right direction, but you still have to walk or even run there yourself.
Now it makes perfect sense why these academics are using AI: Because they cannot form logical arguments on their own. Even their own replies are structured like an AI. They have AI to do the writing for them because they will fail spectacularly with just a little scrutiny, and we as responsible, intelligent human beings should absolutely scrutinize these doofuses.
AI users are so deluded that they think AI is going to save the world with their "knowledge."
// The conversation is no longer about which journal and what purpose. It's about developing tools that are able to produce the best knowledge possible.
That implies that what you produced is "best knowledge." AI does not produce the "best knowledge." We do. All that AI did is just regurgitate what we write, and if what we write is wrong, we're screwed. AI writing will always be mediocre because they are homogenous and will always direct to the most average writing quality. What's the point of "writing" the "best knowledge" if the authors don't even understand what they're writing?
// If an LLM like Claude can lead us to knowledge that ends up curing a disease, will we cure the disease or throw a self-righteous tantrum?
Claude will not lead you to knowledge that ends up curing diseases. No AI will. Humans doing their own research and writing their own papers will lead to the cure. New research requires new data, one that AI does not have. That's where you come in. AI might help you analyze the data or point out errors and flaws, but you still must get the data yourself. AI might be able to point you to the right direction, but you still have to walk or even run there yourself.
Now it makes perfect sense why these academics are using AI: Because they cannot form logical arguments on their own. Even their own replies are structured like an AI. They have AI to do the writing for them because they will fail spectacularly with just a little scrutiny, and we as responsible, intelligent human beings should absolutely scrutinize these doofuses.
