Why Philosophy Journals Should Reject AI Essays
eschwitz · x · 2026-07-16
The article's title discusses AI writing and "evidence of evidence", arguing that philosophy journals should reject AI-generated prose.
The core arguments include:
- Human experts are better than LLMs at nuanced phrasing and semantic handling
- Actively generated text exposes the author's sensitivity in judgment
- Compared to a "generate first, passively approve later" approach, true expert writing better reflects these subtle differences
Overall, it defends the implementation of stricter AI writing thresholds in academic journals.
More from AGI Musings
- Closed frontier models may end up restricting APIs entirely, one researcher argues — xeophon · 2026-07-21
- Aging won’t be solved with $1 billion, says AI observer; hundreds of billions may be needed — DeryaTR_ · 2026-07-21
- Jeff Dean’s vision: build one huge system, then extract task-specific parts — JoshuaJBouw · 2026-07-21
- Agents are useful now, but local frontier inference is still too expensive — MannyKayy · 2026-07-21
- A market should price APIs, but not decide whether frontier AI keeps getting funded — McDonaghMatthew · 2026-07-21
- Samsung launches a robotics division to accelerate humanoid robot development — Polymarket · 2026-07-21