Shame on the reviewers to be that lazy and disrespectful. I had similar suspicion with another publisher. Some claims of the reviewers were completely wrong. Discussed with editors about the issues without actually calling them AI generated. Is there a way to prove it was AI generated?
BTW, same goes for grant reviews...
It was obvious.....
Bullet points?
lots of hyphens, hallucinations, and references to pieces of the paper that do not exist
Of course. In my experience with seeing students use it for homework/discussion questions, it’s all of those things, just in bullet point form for some reason.
It's bc they didn't read the material and don't have the requisite context to distill those bullet points into their own thoughts. I'm an NTS coming back to school @ 38, and we just concluded our 2nd week of the sem today. I'm pretty sure on the DB for my OL class I was the only post that wasn't AI.
None of the replies even covered any of the material that was in the chapter for the week. I suspect this may have been intentional by the teacher. The more open-ended contrast requested would be pretty easy to spot original vs. generic AI, I'd presume.