Does S/he or Doesn’t S/he? Only His/Her Computer Knows for Sure

Science organizations are battling an inundation of AI-assisted applications and submissions 

“As neuroscientist Geraint Rees and social scientist James Wilsdon wrote in Nature last week, funding bodies from Australia to the United Kingdom have seen a sharp rise in applications since 2022 (G. Rees and J. Wilsdon Nature 652, 1119–1121; 2026). This coincides with the advent of OpenAI’s ChatGPT, the first AI chatbot to be publicly available worldwide. And there is good evidence to suggest that many of these increases are AI-driven. Researchers are using AI tools not just to scan the literature or summarize studies, but for proposing ideas for projects, drafting the text of grant applications and refining applications on the basis of predictions of how grant review panels might react (“Responses to the AI Grant Flood,” Editorial, Nature 5 May 2026).”

The problem of AI has become one of quantity (too much) as well as quality (who can tell what is AI and what is not?). Researchers are supposed to acknowledge and document use of AI in grant applications and article submissions, but they do not consistently comply with this fundamental rule. No one has time to smoke out the cheaters and copycats.

DNA Consultants recently added to its terms of service the following caveat about AI:

Your results and all interaction with DNA Consultants are personalized, private and confidential. Our website and reports are copyright and all our methodology and procedures are proprietary. Do not submit to AI engines! Once you have submitted something to an AI engine, you cannot retract or correct it. AI makes mistakes, and genealogy queries are no exception.

Science organizations are so buried in questionable applications they are investigating new software to detect AI and considering using a lottery system to cut down on the sheer number of them.

We think AI has the potential to undermine the very foundations of science and information, to say nothing of its increasingly noxious environmental and jobs impact. We are not a fan. Use it if you choose, but be careful and always be prepared to acknowledge reliance on it to your recipient or audience. That’s only fair.