(Well, *might* be a problem, depending on what amounts to a sniff test dressed in formality. Which isn’t to say it’s a bad standard.) Anyway, that’s a bit of a tangent. I wish we had more detail on the core story here. One question: how is the author supposed to “substantiate” non-use of AI?
Публикация
Обсуждение
Ответы
Putting the burden of proof on the other side is equally hopeless. AI detectors don’t work to a certainty. It’s a recursive mess. Sidebar: AI models rank their own output higher than that of other models and humans. (That‘s tautologous, surely, if not intuitive.) arxiv.org/pdf/2509.00462
arxiv.org