Reacción a "They are organising the first scientific conference with AI systems as authors and reviewers"

The idea of a research conference where both the authors and the reviewers are artificial intelligence systems is, at best, an amusing curiosity and, at worst, an unfunny parody of what science is meant to be. If the authors and reviewers are AI, then perhaps the conference attendees should be AI too, because no human should mistake this for scholarship. 

Science is not a factory that converts data into conclusions. It is a collective human enterprise grounded in interpretation, judgment, and critique. Treating research as a mechanistic pipeline where hypotheses, experiments, and papers can be autonomously generated and evaluated by machines reduces science to empiricism on steroids. It presumes that the process of inquiry is irrelevant so long as the outputs appear statistically valid. But genuine scholarship is less about p-values than it is about conversation, controversy, and embodied knowing. 

Equating AI agents with human scientists is a profound category error. Large language models do not think, discover, or know in any meaningful sense. They produce plausible sequences of words based on patterns in past data. Granting them authorship or reviewer status anthropomorphises what are essentially stochastic text-prediction machines. It confuses the illusion of reason with reason itself. 

There is, of course, a legitimate discussion to be had about how AI tools can assist scientists in analysing data, visualising results, or improving reproducibility. But a conference built fully on AI-generated research reviewed by AI reviewers embodies a dangerous kind of technocratic self-parody. It reflects an ideology of techno-utilitarianism, in which efficiency and automation are celebrated even when they strip away the very human elements that make science legitimate. 

So, to me, 'Agents4Science' is less a glimpse of the future than a satire of the present. A prime example of Poe’s law, where parody and extremism become indistinguishable. It reminds us that while AI can extend our capabilities, it cannot replace the intellectual labour through which knowledge becomes meaningful. Without humans, there is no science, just energy-intensive computation.