Updates to the site guidelines, especially regarding gen-AI

[gwr]

@mihalybaci

It is doesn’t seem to me that the policy here is that much more strict.

Yes it is and disclosed use of AI for refining once thoughts get’s your text blocked (ample evidence from the thread).

@mihalybaci

Also, I do not think it is possible to cite two journals and assume they represent all “major scientific publishers” either.

The quantifier “all” was never used by me.

@mihalybaci

For example, the esteemed Science magazine would seem to have a slightly stricter policy than either of the ones you mentioned.

That’s not true. I just visited the Science journal’s guidelines for AI usage and they pretty much match those for Nature and Elsevier given as examples.

@mihalybaci

Lastly, I do not think that the standards of science journals can or should be applied here. The two communication styles serve difference purposes. The point of a journal article is to tell the world about some area of research in enough detail that others can understand it, judge it, and build off of it. The entire point of a forum like this one is to discuss a specific topic with other humans in a direct back and forth. Because the way the communications happens is so different, different rules are needed to apply to each.

That’s some leap there beyond scientific evidence against it. It is quite unclear whether AI-use even for direct communication is not benefitial, see the literature I cited here. Furthermore, the OP started the thread addressing announcements for packages and that to me is closer to scientific papers (e.g., announcing new findings) than to human interaction?

Did I miss something else?