> I've been thinking lately that one could probably leverage the same technology to evaluate the quality of research, possibly as a post-hoc verification. I do

> I've been thinking lately that one could probably leverage the same technology to evaluate the quality of research, possibly as a post-hoc verification. I doubt it. They'll be just as effective as ChatGPT-detectors are. Completely useless. > If not for anything, LaTeX formatting is tedious. LaTeX formatting is a very, very, very small part of publishing research. At least it was for me. > However, you can always seed an LLM with the bits of information you want explained and use the result as a basis for improvement. That's what I tried to do with the argument in my PhD thesis. It didn't work. Also, at the point where you have meticulously thought through how to structure your argument (and that's what I needed to do to get ChatGPT to produce anything of value at all) you did 95% of the work already. Actually producing the text isn't the hard part of writing. My point still stands: LLMs help way more if you want to produce low-quality papers than when you want to produce high-quality papers and as a consequence, the percentage of low-quality work will increase.