Nothing Is Harder to Resist Than the Temptation of AI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of generative AI has become increasingly prevalent in the business world. With the ability to create original content and automate certain tasks, businesses have been quick to adopt this technology. However, as with any emerging technology, there are potential pitfalls to be aware of. This article aims to review the current state of generative AI in business and highlight some of the potential risks associated with its use. Specifically, we examine issues such as pausing giant AI experiments, misinformation, data accuracy, process automation, shift of power, control of civilization, organizational security, and the potential for AI-generated content to deceive individuals. By bringing these concerns to the forefront, we hope to encourage a more thoughtful and cautious approach to the use of generative AI in business.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.074 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".