Suppose you are an independent researcher writing a paper. Before submitting it for review to journals, you could hire a published author in that field to review it for you (independently of the journal), and tell you whether it is submission-worthy, and help you improve it to the point it was. If they wanted, they could be listed as coauthor, and if they don't want that, at least you'd acknowledge their assistance in the paper.
Because I think there are two types of people who might write AI slop papers: (1) people who just don't care and want to throw everything at the wall and see what sticks; (2) people who genuinely desire to seriously contribute to the field, but don't know what they are doing. Hiring an advisor could help the second group of people.
Of course, I don't know how willing people would be to be hired to do this. Someone who was senior in the field might be too busy, might cost too much, or might worry about damage to their own reputation. But there are so many unemployed and underemployed academics out there...
Maybe, though in my experience beginner PhD students will often write like this in early manuscript drafts after they've been working on some project for a few months. Usually it's easily fixed by having someone more experienced proof-read it with comments explaining why that is bad style. Worst case, they'll learn the hard way (i.e., conference reviewers). But seeing this without any proof-reading on some public physics lab site just makes me cringe that they have unchecked write access to that site.
See... but I would say that experiential consciousness is unexplained and impossible to measure, and yet, if I were to rank everything based on how certain I am that it exists, experiential consciousness would be at the top of the list. If you take away all of my senses, what am I left with? Just the ability to think and experience my own existence.
Well... you are certain that consciousness exists because you experience it: that is measuring.
As for explaining it, I guess it's more of a definitional problem than a physical one. I'm still confident that one day we'll be able to look at something and approximate how conscious it is.
Free will, on the other hand, requires supernatural phenomenons coming from outside the material world (dualism) to explain how we, humans, can make decisions free of any (or some) of the influences of the physical world. I don't buy it, and I believe the burden of proof falls on the ones who do.
reply