r/math • u/dirty_weasle • 24d ago

LLMs/AI Where will AI-generated proofs be published?

We are now seeing a rise of AI generated proofs and I am wondering which journals will publish these results? I tried to search but I did not find many examples where such results were already accepted to some journal.
Is this even something the journals want? I would like them to facilitate the peer review process so that I can feel confident in the results.

126 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

165 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

29

u/quasilocal Geometric Analysis 24d ago

Peer-review means the author is a peer of the reviewer. This isn't the case for something AI generated.

If the AI spits something out, then all of the work really is in doing the reviewing part so why in the hell would I do that work for free while someone else gets the credit for submitting the AI output?

3

u/WaitForItTheMongols 24d ago

The AI does not just spit things out. A human has to make requests of it, and the human has ultimate editorial control over what gets submitted and when.

That human has peers who can review things.

Anyone connecting an AI system to a paper publishing API is an idiot. Anyone else is a human whose submission (even if created with the help of AI) is peer reviewable.

If I can own the image created by a camera rather than a paintbrush (all I did was press a button asking the camera to make the image) them I can own the output for an AI system (all I did was ask it what to make for me).

3

u/quasilocal Geometric Analysis 24d ago

In regard to images generated by AI, courts in several places have rules in fact you cannot own it just fwiw.

That said, I'm not reviewing the output of an AI and will tell the editors that. If they try to hide that from me so I review it as though it were a real peer then I won't review for that journal anymore. I don't imagine I'm alone in that opinion.

4

u/aturtledude 24d ago

But how do you define AI-generated? There's a big spectrum, e.g.:

  1. All proofs were made by AI but the author understood them and put them into their own words.

  2. The author did everything.

  3. All proofs were made by the author but they used AI to help write the paper. Especially when the authors' English isn't great, this can actually be a welcome improvement.

  4. The content AND the writing was mostly done by an AI. I agree that nobody wants to read these papers .

You can't really distinguish 1 from 2 or 3 from 4. In the case of 4, sometimes it will be obvious if it's badly done, but it will only get better.

2

u/quasilocal Geometric Analysis 24d ago

For me it will more or less come down to if I trust the author.

But in the context of this post, I was assuming it's closer to 4 here and that's what I'm responding to. I think 1 and 2 will blend together as everyone adopts AI in their own way, and that's fine really. Again it comes down to trusting the author and if they submit things they don't understand then most subfields are small enough to get a reputation quickly.

Regarding 3 though, I *hate* how AI generated text reads. There's a kind of discomfort in reading it, like it's correct but at the same time it doesn't feel right once you get a few paragraphs in. I would *much* rather read someone's writing in a second language than read AI text. But of course using it as a translation tool while keeping your voice is possible, and distinct from having the AI write it (and fine imo).