That seems like good peer review! Which I agree is completely unfulfilled by LLMs. Also, I'd argue based on much I've witnessed (more peers' cases than my own) unfulfilled by many humans.

Agree! I don't think it's for any 'good' or fundamentally defensible reason, so to speak. Just generational style.

Another way of saying this: Am I *already* writing AI slop?

Another way to say this. Really more a question than a take.

"Good" eco/evo papers require that readers understand the paper without, say, knowing *anything* beforehand about the organism or system. Does this make the field especially vulnerable to AI slop?

on the other hand, if the goal is technical accuracy, insight based on details, alternative hypotheses raised by those with detailed knowledge of topic, the LLMs are obviously inappropriate.

But is that what human peer reviewers are doing?

awesome, thanks!! Doubly great because the project is a very exciting undergrad thesis on Lesser Black-backed Gull expansion across NA, and @gilbert-lab.bsky.social literally has a gull on his head :)

definitely of interest, thanks! (also just find Mol Ecol papers pleasant / fun to read in general!)

always love the head tuck grump stare. reminds me of my cat

somehow it seems so much worse when I realize you are reaching the masses with this

Bare Parts Maturation, or, the only thing that could possibly make it more difficult for me to get a permanent research job than DPM lmao

Procellariiformes hard to understand re BPM, can't even think of light eyed albatross (Campbell's?).

So, gannets and pelicans only with the AI EYE.