Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Correspondence to Dr Nash Anderson; nash. anderson@ gmail. com © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Reuse permitted under CC BYNC. No commercial reuse. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. INTRODUCTION Researching a topic and generating an academic paper is a nuanced skill. It can take months or years to produce and publish one, if it is ever published at all. What if there were a way to make this happen instantly? Artificial intelligence (AI) may hold a flame to quickly analyse a research topic and generate an academic paper. There are many forms of AI; this editorial discusses natural language modelbased AI, such as ChatGPT, and their potential ability to generate academic papers. Natural language modelbased AI, in particular ChatGPT, is generating new content and a lot of controversies. This AI software is innovative. It generates, de novo, content that has a natural conversational flow. It can quickly answer questions and write poems, fan fiction and children’s books. ChatGPT has even passed the United States Medical Licensing Examination theory section with no additional training and/or years of studying medicine. Languagebased AI has already entered the scientific community. Nature reported that four manuscripts in preprint credit ChatGPT as an author. Also, an article reported that AI had been used to generate an academic paper. In this editorial, we discuss the pros and cons of AI for manuscript generation in sports and exercise medicine (SEM), generate an academic paper using AI and bypass AIgeneration detection, and discuss potential concerns regarding natural language modelbased AI. We aim to get insights on how AI, in particular ChatGPT and similar language modelbased AI, will impact the future of manuscript generation in SEM. To achieve such purpose, we ought to consider what is an academic paper, whether AI should write academic papers, what the issues are, what our stance should be on AIgenerated texts and how we deal with them.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Anderson et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: