Your incredulity tells me you haven't been following the issue at all. You assume people always want to put out a legitimate paper. Read Retraction Watch for e

Your incredulity tells me you haven't been following the issue at all. You assume people always want to put out a legitimate paper. Read Retraction Watch for examples of researchers who don't. https://retractionwatch.com/papers-and-peer-reviews-with-evidence-of-chatgpt-writing/ https://retractionwatch.com/papers-and-peer-reviews-with-evi... has a list of papers where a generative AI was almost certainly used, but it use wasn't reported, and some of the papers were clearly not legit. For example, https://pubpeer.com/publications/CAABBF887348FB2D1C0329E0A27BE6 https://pubpeer.com/publications/CAABBF887348FB2D1C0329E0A27... . The first sentence of the introduction starts "Certainly, here is a possible introduction for your topic", and commenters also discovered that the authors reported the same data for multiple papers.