4
If you were commissioning a scientific assessment, which would you place the most trust in?
Results
(228 Answers)
Answer Explanations
- AI with human expert oversightuser-154906If AI models have been refined for scientific review purposes, then AI could drive most of the process, but always have to be overseen by experts in the field.
- AI with human expert oversightuser-11803Openevidence
- Human experts using AI assistanceuser-597773Totally replacing the whole work through AI is forbidden that the system might be collapse. Simply for helping and making easily task rather than totally replacing as a whole.
- It depends entirely on the task — no general preferenceuser-568782AI for editing or translation services, and human experts for the peer review tasks.
- It depends entirely on the task — no general preferenceuser-887652This question is overly broad. "Scientific assessment" could mean a lot of things.
- Human experts using AI assistanceuser-441029AI is a fully virtual thing, it does not know the difference between truth and lie because it does not know about the existence of the real world, therefore any text is as good for it as any other, including hallucinated by it. It compares texts according to various narrative protocols and criteria, but they are all rooted back in other texts. Therefore, it is necessary to have a human, that can evaluate information based on the knowledge outside of these borders. This human should be a good expert in the field. On the other hand, quantity of information is so huge nowadays, that no human can efficiently access all available data on the topic. Here AI can help a lot. But analysis and validization of this information should be preformed by a human. So I choose human experts, that use AI to deal with data massives, but perform assessment themselves. Second best option - just human experts. AI alone or human experts trusting AI to perform the expertise itself and just looking over the results will be a nightmare.
- AI with human expert oversightuser-498547I selected AI with human expert oversight because AI can collect required information in much faster manner than human expert but human expert required to see that all collected info is correct
- Human experts using AI assistanceuser-157767I believe in human originality and accuracy.
- Human experts using AI assistanceuser-460380I will trust more Human experts using AI assistance; in this way, AI is just used to reduce any laborious activity, but human experts should have a central role in all critical activities.
- Human experts using AI assistanceuser-828303There is need for human intelligent to operate the artificial intelligence
- Human experts using AI assistanceuser-267027I prefer expertise that uses AI according to good practices, and I think that each person's personal imprint and writing style are an asset. We need the diversity of viewpoints that creates synergy and therefore leads to the right decision. Every expert brings their own experience, scientific culture, discipline, and critical thinking, and this is what enriches the evaluation.
- AI with human expert oversightuser-301040Combination of human expert and AI assistance will product a better result because AI sometimes can go astral and human being is limited in terms of knowledge
- Human experts using AI assistanceuser-582664Scientific examination should be carried out by humans with the help of artificial intelligence. This is because artificial intelligence can make mistakes. Ideally, scientific reviews should be carried out by expert researchers in their respective fields, with the assistance of artificial intelligence, which is extremely fast at collecting information and generating ideas. However, I do not leave it fully to scientific examination. Personally, I submitted research to scientific journals, but these journals appointed reviewers who may have employed artificial intelligence to evaluate the work. As a result, I discovered scientific flaws and viewpoints that were useless and contributed nothing to the research.
- Human experts using AI assistanceuser-508016The review made for the expert human assisted with AI can be more reliable
- AI with human expert oversightuser-890708人工智能它能代替人的部分基本功能，人的主体功能还是要靠自身。
- Human experts using AI assistanceuser-866433I have found that the current AI doesn't have much capability for innovative ideas, rather it circulates in the learned space, whereas humans have much broad range of innovative ideas and implementations.
- It depends entirely on the task — no general preferenceuser-953899As I said, it depends entirely on the task, so there is no general preference our consensus that which one is the best out of all based on the expertise and available time frame to make the most out of available time the station should be taken whether to take AI help in the research or not.
- Human experts using AI assistanceuser-876636AI can assist us, still it can’t replace human touch
- Human experts using AI assistanceuser-139009It is also the most common stance among researchers in high-stakes fields like immuno-oncology, where human expertise is irreplaceable but AI tools are great for processing data
- It depends entirely on the task — no general preferenceuser-539924Like asking whether a microscope or a telescope is better. It depends on the task.
- Human experts using AI assistanceuser-194414Because AI can help guide in some situations when there is lack of knowledge. I think it can upgrade the ability to understand and give better responses.
- It depends entirely on the task — no general preferenceuser-871577Science is a wide specturm activity, Some tasks are better suited to data checking others may require a more subjective judgement.
- Human experts onlyuser-481327AI relies on past data generated entirely from human experts, to use AI in a scientific endeavor creates a scientific cognitive debt that could decrease the scientific and innovative process that occurs when scientists fully understand or ask inquisitive inferences on an underlying process.
- Human experts onlyuser-228600TRUSTED human expert or a mix
- Human experts using AI assistanceuser-516400I think that human review and supervision is still very important for the output of AI tools for reasons of simple humanity, machines are not humans, customs of my environment and community, as well as appropriate texts regarding behavioral output.
- AI with human expert oversightuser-377267All AI readouts for official or publication purposes must be checked by responsible human experts.
- Human experts using AI assistanceuser-762565Because artificial intelligence, working alongside humans, will help accelerate performance and detect statistical errors or incorrect references.
- Human experts using AI assistanceuser-365645Part of the work..like literature review part may be checked but expert must see and verify those obtained outputs
- Human experts using AI assistanceuser-812675humans are able to depict something AI wont much as it its an accurate platform
- Human experts using AI assistanceuser-395064Working with colleagues who use LLM a lot, and having used Chat for multiple different tasks, I think that the addition of LLM inout makes my outputs more comprehensive. I would have confidence in people who have used them and compared models, but still assume oversight and responsibility for the outputs.
- Human experts using AI assistanceuser-432588Sometimes, humans can make mistakes when reading. Summarizing or clarifying the document could help streamline the review process
- Human experts onlyuser-490306The insights of human experts is based on the experience and scientific judgements.
- Human experts using AI assistanceuser-468267AI is a powerful tool but humans have to use and supervise it.
- Human experts onlyuser-550102I would say that, rather than using AI as a search engine or style editor, I use it as a scientific interlocutor: someone with whom I can discuss ideas before presenting them in a manuscript, project, or review. I believe that final assessment must be human.
- Human experts using AI assistanceuser-746645I trust human experts the most because they can interpret research in its clinical and scientific context. AI is a valuable assistant for finding literature, checking reporting standards, and improving manuscripts, but important scientific judgments should remain the responsibility of experienced reviewers.
- Human experts using AI assistanceuser-164084Human expert above machine learning.
Some decisions may require circumstantial evidence as well as inferential analysis which a particular AI might not have been trained on it.
Again, the quality of an AI result or output might actually depend on the available data for which it was trained on. - Human experts using AI assistanceuser-756416As I mentioned earlier, I believe that some aspects can be automated using AI, and that AI can help accelerate processes. However, it should always operate under the supervision, oversight, and validation of human experts.
- Human experts using AI assistanceuser-923069It is the present.
- Human experts using AI assistanceuser-616480AI can be helpful - it may or may not be correct, but it gives another perspective. Humans must continue to be involved in the decision making process though.
- AI with human expert oversightuser-531244AI requires checking based on the prompt and data being quiered.