Since starting to use AIs seriously for search in the last 3 months I have read and referenced more published papers and academic primary sources then I think I did in the previous 5 years. They're fantastic for pointing at some claim and asking for the primary source for it, and then it does the work of following things through the layers of backref to the original, assuming it's online. Opening the library up to AI access makes it far more accessible and usable then it was before.

AIs, at least in their current form, make you more who ever you were. If you want snap, glib answers of dubious accuracy, they'll give them to you, more easily than ever before. If you want to dig back into primary sources and get the original content, they'll do that for you, more easily than ever before.

Can't speak to how the science infrastructure is going to handle them, but if it takes down the peer review system, which I think has been worthless for probably going on two decades and has just given the entire enterprise a false sense of assurance, it'll probably be a net gain in the end. Peer review is a source of more problems then it is solving right now.

The real efficacy of the peer review system has always been somewhat questionable. That's a big reason why arxiv is so prominent.

Came to say the same thing. Now remains the time to give the public access to the ACM digital library.

> I think that LLMs are going to wreck the peer review system for all but hard-experimental papers

I think I may be shadowbanned, but at what point do we start viewing LLMs as a national security threat?

Scholarly article authors never expected royalty or permission for their scholarly works to be reused.

I don't think this is AI-generated. It is focused and direct. It reads like anodyne albeit totally human academic manager writing.