Interlude: Expertise, Evidence Bank, and Responsible Use of AI
I recently received a newsletter that included detailed recommendations that I would expect from an expert. But the author is still quite new to the field. I immediately suspected that they used AI to craft the newsletter.
And I began to wonder: in a world with AI, how can we distinguish an expert from an imposter? And is knowledge alone enough to establish yourself as an expert?
I've been thinking about these questions a lot this past week. I don't have clear answers yet. But I do think experts need a particularly important quality: lived experience.
I think that to establish yourself as an expert, you need to do more than regurgitate (or generate) knowledge. You need lived experience that gives you a unique perspective and adds an aspect of humanity that AI cannot generate.
I'm still mulling this over, and I'd love to know your thoughts. In a world with AI, how do you think we can distinguish an expert from an imposter?
Now onto this week's round-up...
💌 Round-up
📆 Upcoming
Scientific Writing Simplified Accelerator – February 14, 2025
Next week, we kick off the annual accelerator program for the Scientific Writing Simplified course. The program will help you stay on track to complete the course with weekly reminders, check-ins, and live calls with me and your fellow classmates. Enroll by February 13 to join the program.
👓 Reading
A thorough examination of ChatGPT-3.5 potential applications in medical writing: A preliminary study
“This evaluation highlights both the benefits and limitations of using ChatGPT-3.5, emphasizing its ability to enhance vocabulary, prevent plagiarism, generate hypotheses, suggest keywords, summarize articles, simplify medical jargon, and transform informal text into an academic format. However, AI tools should not replace human expertise. It is crucial for medical professionals to ensure thorough human review and validation to maintain the accuracy and relevance of the content in case they eventually use AI as a supplementary resource in medical writing.”
How is ChatGPT acknowledged in academic publications?
“Around 80% of acknowledgments were related to text editing and proofreading, while only 5.3% mentioned ChatGPT for non-editorial research support, such as data analysis or programming. A small portion (3.5%) of researchers acknowledged ChatGPT for drafting sections of manuscripts. About two-thirds of corresponding authors who acknowledged ChatGPT were from non-English-speaking countries, and 75% of the publications with ChatGPT acknowledgments were published within January to August 2024.“
National Academies President on How to Use Generative AI Responsibly in Scientific Research
“The authors cautioned that although AI will speed scientific discoveries, its tools and processes—particularly generative AI—challenge some of the ‘core norms and values in the conduct of science, including accountability, transparency, replicability, and human responsibility.’ McNutt and her coauthors also called on the scientific community to build oversight bodies that can respond to the use of AI in scientific research.”
🧰 Tools
CME Evidence Bank
Recent federal actions have led to barriers in accessing essential public health data. With uncertainty in how these barriers may change, Alex Howson of Write Medicine is curating a list of alternative evidence sources from the World Health Organization, state and local health departments, medical associations, university research centers, and more. You can access, edit, and share the spreadsheet with your colleagues and peers.
💬 Quote
“An expert is a person who has found out by his own painful experience all the mistakes that one can make in a very narrow field." – Niels Bohr
Thank you so much for reading.
Warmly,
Crystal
