ChatGPT Unlikely to End Academic Audit-Culture Norms

In a recent statement, an anonymous researcher expressed hope that the artificial intelligence system known as ChatGPT could render obsolete the current academic audit-culture norm of churning out largely useless and conceptually hollow publications. Unfortunately, it seems likely that this technology will only serve to accelerate production and deepen academic absurdity. The issue at hand is one of quantity over quality. The pressure for researchers to publish more and more papers has been steadily increasing in recent years, with no end in sight. This is due in part to the way that universities measure success; faculty members are often judged by how many publications they have under their belt rather than the quality of those works. As such, many researchers feel compelled to produce large numbers of low-quality papers just to keep up with their peers. ChatGPT promises a solution by automating the process of writing research papers through natural language processing (NLP). In theory, this should reduce the amount of time spent on each paper and allow researchers to focus on producing higher quality work instead. However, it seems unlikely that this technology will actually lead to any meaningful change in academia's current norms and expectations. Instead, it may simply encourage even more rapid production without any improvement in quality or substance. Furthermore, there is also a risk that ChatGPT could be used for unethical purposes such as plagiarism or fabrication of data. With AI systems becoming increasingly sophisticated and difficult to detect, it would be relatively easy for unscrupulous individuals to use these tools for their own gain without being caught. This could lead not only to further erosion of trust within academia but also potential legal repercussions if fraudulent research were published using these methods. Ultimately, while ChatGPT may offer some advantages when it comes to speeding up the publication process, its potential downsides seem far greater than its benefits when it comes to changing academia’s current norms and expectations around publishing research papers. Until universities begin rewarding quality over quantity when assessing faculty performance or until new technologies emerge which can truly revolutionize academic publishing standards, we can expect little change from our current state of affairs anytime soon.