I know this is a meme post and I apologise to the OP for the incoming rant.

When someone proposes, implements or enforces a clearly sensible rule, and someone else brings weird corner case scenarios up, always ask yourself if there’s a conflict of interests. Sometimes there’s none, but often there is — undeclared and disguised as concerns about something else.

That’s the case here. Check James Miller’s XCancel profile and you’ll see it.

excepts from his profile; emphasis mine in all cases.

[Description] Smith College economics professor. PhD Chicago. JD Stanford. AI safety, game theory. Stroke survivor, hoping to make it to the singularity.

[pinned tweet]Nerd score: How many have you considered? // Cryonics, multiverse, Boltzmann brain, AI utopia, quantum immortality, Roko’s basilisk, gray goo, paperclip maximizer, great filter, ethics in infinite universe, acausal trade, longevity escape velocity, simulation and zoo hypothesis.

[tweet]Suppose AIs become superhuman at math within two years, as far beyond humans in math as they already are in chess. What practical breakthroughs might follow, perhaps room temperature superconductors?

[retweeted from another]I would be mortified to have a typo—never mind a hallucinated citation—in a paper. But you see from twitter threads that some people think having a tidy bibliography is the definition of good research. They’ve got a 6th grade report-in-clear-plastic-binder view of the process

[tweet]I tell my students that they have to use AI to help write papers. I give them guidance on how they can effectively do this. I think I’m giving them more practical help than if I forced them to write without AI. This past semester, one student even asked me if she had to use AI and I said yes.

et cetera.

Note how he’s too invested into large “language models” to admit they’re often a source of misinformation. To the point he’s telling his students the equivalent of “scientific paper, toilet paper, same thing lol, just add shit lmao”.

He’s clearly ignorant on why references are such a big deal in science. When you write a paper, you must be able to tell people where you got the info from, otherwise the whole thing devolves into “trust me” = “I think you’re gullible filth”. With “trust me” there’s no knowledge being shared, just a bunch of bullshitters repeating the (often incorrect) assumptions of each other.

And odds are he gives no flying fucks about either “concern” he raised. Specially because the solution for both issues is simple, as long as you care about science instead of “me publish paper lol lmao”:

• language barriers: your research should not rely on things you do not understand. So work with a translation of the work, translate it yourself, or don’t quote it.
• co-author adding references LLMs made up: why are you co-authoring a paper with a gullible muppet who uses LLM output as source of [mis]info???

/rant