


At least 10% of research may already be co-authored by AI
That might not be a bad thing
“CERTAINLY, HERE is a possible introduction for your topic...” began a recent article in Surfaces and Interfaces, a scientific journal. Attentive readers might have wondered who exactly that bizarre opening line was addressing. They might also have wondered whether the ensuing article, on the topic of battery technology, was written by a human or a machine.
It is a question ever more readers of scientific papers are asking. Large language models (LLMs) are now more than good enough to help write a scientific paper. They can breathe life into dense scientific prose and speed up the drafting process, especially for non-native English speakers. Such use also comes with risks: LLMs are particularly susceptible to reproducing biases, for example, and can churn out vast amounts of plausible nonsense. Just how widespread an issue this was, though, has until recently been unclear.
Explore more

A deadly new strain of mpox is raising alarm
Health officials warn it could soon spread beyond the Democratic Republic of Congo

What The Economist thought about solar power
A look back through our archives: sometimes prescient, sometimes not

A flower’s female sex organs can speed up fertilisation
They can also stop it from happening

A deadly new strain of mpox is raising alarm
Health officials warn it could soon spread beyond the Democratic Republic of Congo

What The Economist thought about solar power
A look back through our archives: sometimes prescient, sometimes not

A flower’s female sex organs can speed up fertilisation
They can also stop it from happening
How physics can improve image-generating AI
The laws governing electromagnetism and even the weak nuclear force could be worth mimicking
The dominant model of the universe is creaking
Dark energy could break it apart
Only 5% of therapies tested on animals are approved for human use
More rigorous experiments could improve those odds