AI Slop: Why Philosophy Journals Should Reject AI-Written Prose (schwitzsplinters.blogspot.com)

A recent opinion piece argues that philosophy journals should prioritize human-written prose over AI-generated text. The author highlights the importance of authentic human expression in maintaining the evidential quality of philosophical arguments. They assert that human experts think differently, and their unique word choices reflect nuanced understanding, which is often lost when using language models. While AI can assist with generating ideas or performing minor editorial tasks, the cognitive process of creating original text actively engages expert sensitivities and critical thinking. This stance has significant implications for the AI/ML community, particularly in academic settings. As the use of AI in writing becomes more prevalent, it raises concerns about the integrity of scholarly communication. Philosophers and other experts often rely on the implicit trustworthiness that comes from understanding the author's expertise and the careful crafting of their arguments. The call to reject AI-written submissions underscores the need for accountability and quality assurance in published work, suggesting that the nuances of human-generated content are vital for sound philosophical discourse.