Yesterday, @thehoffprof asked how we can manage law review article selection in times of the slopalypse Today, a new study offers some evidence for fighting AI flooding with AI. In head-to-head comparisons, AI-generated reviews beat reviews by paid human experts. AI judges overwhelmingly preferred them. Three former journal editors also preferred them in 26 of 30 judgments. That doesn't mean that AI should select our future scholarship. The downsides are obvious. The study doesn't really test selection decisions, much less questions of scholarly impact. But it makes the case for using AI-assisted triage to direct scarce human attention toward interesting, rigorous, and creative articles Complain about it, by all means. But the flood is coming either way. If you don't have a better AND realistic solution, the complaint won't get us very far.

People treat Pangram as an infallible oracle. They weaponize its probabilities to shame others by some arbitrary purity standard. The irony is that it’s mostly redundant: obviously AI-generated stuff is already recognizable without it. And for more nuanced writing, Pangram fails to distinguish between text written by a human and edited by AI, vs text that is generated whole-cloth from a prompt. At the end of the day, @pangram ’s goal is about monetizing people’s anxiety about AI - it’s not about protecting creative integrity. They sell a false binary certainty to those gullible enough to ignore probabilities.