Lots of people with strong opinions about use of AI detectors to filter what papers we review (or what stories we consider for awards).
I wrote up a toy model of using AI detection to infer author type to get at some implict assumptions we make when we argue that AI detection is or is not useful
the year 2026 in a nutshell
It's interesting how quick we are to assume science is aligned by default. There's an idea that good science doesn't require human involvement, it's about the "Truth" which can be discovered & verified independent of our judgment. In doing so we ignore most of the history of science.
ArXiv affirming human responsibility without telling you what tools to use — and it being largely uncontroversial — is where you can start to feel what modus vivendi will look like.
Thoughts on metascientific consequences of AI-generated slides & ideas diluting the impression that speakers are commited to what they present. Science runs on personal attachment more than we admit. If it were a cake mix, how wouldn we add back an egg?
statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2026/05/28/w...