Default to human-robot teams: why research should be judged on quality, not AI use
_akpiper · x · 2026-11-07
Economist Miles Kimball proposes rules for AI in scientific research: unless AI helped create the dataset being analyzed, a finished product should never be evaluated on whether AI was used — the default assumption is everything is done by human-robot teams, and the only question is how good it is. @akpiper agrees that quality comes first but flags the real problem as scale: we can no longer human-evaluate everything being generated. The exchange highlights the core tension in research assessment: shifting from process audits to outcome audits in the AI era.
More from AGI Musings
- Companies are quietly rehiring roles they cut in the name of AI, suggesting AI wasn't the real reason — DavidLinthicum · 2026-11-07
- Researcher: AI community's outrage drops once LLMs master the thing it criticized — RexDouglass · 2026-11-07
- Researcher: the mob cared about citations until LLMs got good at them, then stopped instantly — RexDouglass · 2026-11-07
- AI Safety Researcher Vows to Stay, Calls on OpenAI and Anthropic to Stop RSI — trevposts · 2026-11-07
- AI Safety Researchers List Concrete Ways to Contribute Beyond Fellowships Like MATS — AndyMasley · 2026-11-07
- Garrison Lovely: data center moratoriums won't slow AI, chip export controls would — GarrisonLovely · 2026-11-07