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

I think the important thing is that this conference is recognised as an experiment. Its purpose (as I understand it) is to evaluate the possibility of AI authors and AI reviewers, rather than to advocate for AI systems in these roles. It is far too early for that kind of advocacy - I’m sure most researchers would agree. But evaluations and experiments are fine. It’s in the nature of science to run experiments and evaluations. My main worry is that the conference is understood (by journalists, or the public) as a substantive research conference, rather than an experiment. That would be a misconception.  

I'd like to point out the [New Zealand] Royal Society Te Apārangi’s guidelines on use of Generative AI in research, which I helped to develop. These guidelines are rather high-level - but they include a general principle which basically rules out the use of autonomous AIs as authors or reviewers. It’s Principle 3.2.2: [human researchers] should ‘be responsible for research outputs’. Specifically, 'GenAI systems are neither authors nor co-authors. Authorship implies agency and responsibility, and therefore lies with human researchers’ (my highlights).  

This principle doesn’t preclude a conference of the kind being run, provided it’s understood as experimental in purpose. If the conference is understood as presenting and reviewing actual substantive research, it would contravene the guidelines we laid down.