Delving into ChatGPT usage in academic writing through excess vocabulary

It’s an issue I’ve noticed personally, as I’m seeing an increasing number of reviews that lack substance and are almost entirely made of filler content. Here’s an excerpt from a particularly egregious recent example I ran into, which had this to say on the subject of meaningful comparison to recent work:

> Additionally, while the bibliography appears to be comprehensive, there could be some minor improvements, such as including more recent or relevant references if applicable.

The whole review was written like this, with no specific suggestions for improvement, just vague “if applicable” filler. Infuriating.

The leap from how the LLMs write now to how a professional sounding scientist might write their paper is probably not that big.

Its possible now to train them on your own writing style.

An old partner edited papers for a large publisher - largely written by non-native speakers and already heavily machine translated - and would almost always use ChatGPT for the first pass when extensive changes were needed.

She was paid by the word and also had a pretty intense daily minimum quota so it was practically required to get enough done to earn a liveable wage and avoid being replaced by another remote “contractor”.

So yes - AI is seen as useful for people gaming a system for personal advancement at the expense of global scientific progress and the betterment of humanity.