Virginia Conde on Nostr: yes, precisely; there is an issue with the order of events, which at the very least ...

yes, precisely; there is an issue with the order of events, which at the very least should be iterative -- I write a draft of something / an idea / a guess, wonder if someone has looked into this, search for studies, read/skim articles, inform my idea/guess, reshape my writing.

The alternative is to write something I believe / guess / reason, but because I'm writing an *academic article*, I need to make it look like one, so I plaster it with references that seemingly support my assertions (but that I haven't read).

A lot of this discussion seems to circle around whether the references are fake or whether they do exist. But a reference "existing" is not enough if the author hasn't engaged with the text in any capacity, or if it hasn't informed their thinking and reasoning in any way. At this point it ceases to be an academic approach and turns into mere aesthetics.

It is very easy for a GPT model to provide a reference as an output to a prompt, many of which do exist, while still misattributing information that is not supported by said reference. The only way to ascertain whether a reference has been correctly attributed is to know what the article contains; but if you already know the reference and have engaged with its contents, you wouldn't really need for a GPT model to do that work for you. If you need to check all references for accuracy and relevance anyway, then how does using a GPT model (instead of, say, Scopus, or Web of science) save you time?