Scholar pushes back on claim that refusing AI in research is 'malpractice'
sethlazar · x · 2026-10-07
Responding to the claim that refusing to use frontier AI for research in 2026 is 'malpractice,' scholar Seth Lazar rejects the 'false symmetry.'
- He argues there's a clear asymmetry: AI-assisted writing is problematic, but not using AI is simply fine in many fields.
- Research tasks split into: those AI doesn't help, those where it only accelerates at some risk, and those where it's a matter of choice, not malpractice.
- He's pro-AI but says norms matter: useful tools get adopted on merit — no need to shame non-users. Math may be the exception where AI is becoming essential.
More from AGI Musings
- Design panel: what early-stage founders should build while models change weekly — pxd · 2026-10-07
- Consumer AI Winners Exist Only in Search, Productivity and Creative Tools—Everything Else Is Open — omooretweets · 2026-10-07
- 'Computer' was a job that vanished — AI will make 2000s computer use feel equally alien — sterlingcrispin · 2026-10-07
- GMU NLP simulates 10k LLM agents with memory and social networks moving through San Francisco for a week — ZiyuYao · 2026-10-07
- OpenAI nukes your research, you rewrite your project in Rust: 'a jobs program for ourselves' — almmaasoglu · 2026-10-07
- Dario Amodei's 2016 AI safety paper resurfaces: thinking about safety pre-Transformer — bookwormengr · 2026-10-07