Comment by JadeNB
2 days ago
Which part is a sin? Using LLMs to deal with a lack of English-language fluency? I am a scientist (actually a mathematician, if it matters), and, if that's the way to deal with the practical hegemony of English in the scientific literature, then I have no problem with it. Rather that than people with important ideas can't get them before the scientific community. As long as the authors personally check and stand behind the scientific content of their papers, what do I care how the exposition was produced, especially if the role of LLMs is properly disclosed?
https://lists.isocpp.org/std-proposals/att-0486/Reply_to_Zer...
Here's a paper by a non native English speaker. The lack of the formal style doesn't cause any issue. Preciseness is what matters.
To your tastes maybe. Will it get through the editor's desk at a scientific journal as easily?
It seems to me like we're saying the same thing. I'm saying that there is a practical bias, as in, it's there in the real world whether we like it or not, that can prevent some papers from appearing just because of limitations on English-language fluency, not because of any lack of scientific content. One solution is to get rid of it, but that's a long-term project. If we have an immediate remedy that works, if the authors still take responsibility for the scientific content, and if the use of the tool that provides that remedy is responsibly disclosed, then it seems like a win all around, except perhaps that it makes the need for the longer-term solution less obvious.
It would be nice if scientists could write and publish in their first language. If a machine translation brings it to a wider audience fine, but the lack of disclosure of who authored the paper is a problem.
I'd way rather read a translation in which the author themselves has played a part, and at least nominally signed off on it, than one done on the fly with even less than usual guarantee of its correctness.
(I agree that authors should be able to publish in their first language, but I also note that the historical practicality has been that publication in non-dominant languages has resulted more in silos than in broadening access.)
[flagged]