尽管有丑闻，但达特茅斯总统西安·莱亚·贝洛克(英语：Sian Leah Beilock)仍想要更多的AI. (她于9月为大西洋写了一篇名为“我在达特茅斯为什么想要更多AI”的作品。 ) 学校领导应该“坚持最高标准”，这似乎意味着一件事：披露。
Beilock在宣布Schnell辞职时写道，“我们每个人都对如何和何时将AI纳入我们的工作和生活有不同的看法。 此外，让达特茅斯站在AI的最前列，不可避免地意味着领导通过一个流畅和快速变化的环境。 因此，作为领导人，我们树立我们期望学生和学者树立的透明度和人性判断的模范至关重要。”
谁写的？
“披露”是什么意思？2026年9月一篇名为“谁写了这个？” 的关于AI检测工具的论文中，Schnell自己走得非常远，认为“人写”或“AI写”太简单了。 在他看来，一切都会成为人类判断和人工智能的混合体，这没有任何问题。 对他来说，关键是作者对案文承担全部责任，但案文是由作者编写和编辑的。
在论文中，施奈尔阐述了他的制作方法。 值得一提：
2026年9月，我问OpenAI的GPT-5. 我建议把问题与图灵的模仿游戏和“反向”联系起来。 AI-文本检测提供的图灵测试。 GPT-5.6号卫星 Pro将问题与二进制假说测试和统计决策理论联系起来，提出了早期结构和标题，确定了候选文献，并产生了部分早期草案。 我选择了问题，期刊，观众，和最终的争论方向。 我决定哪些例子和结果仍应居于中心地位，包括决定保留"梁书"研究，同时以重要的反证予以反驳。 我检查了引用的文献，否定或纠正了我判断不准确的声称，纠正了数学和概念错误，重新整理了论证。
在修订手稿时，我改写了大部分章节，并增加了实质性的解释。 我偶尔要求GPT-5.6 Sol为我重写的部分提供语言编辑协助。 我创造了数字，并做出了关于数学，解释，来源，组织和措辞的最后决定。 我对由此产生的手稿负全部责任。
在将手稿提交出版之前，我还要求GPT-5.6 Pro和Anthropic Claude Fable 5.1批判性地加以审查，并确定审查人员可能提出的问题。 我评估了他们查明的问题，并作了纠正，我认为这些问题是有必要的。
尽管有这么多援助，施奈尔抵制AI是"共同作者"的想法。 相反，他写道，“呼吁[论文]`合写 ' 会造成不同的混乱。 数学工具长期以来做出了实质性贡献，但没有因此成为作者。. 关键不是软件什么贡献都没有。 正是这种贡献和写作的作用不同。”
本文由 AI图鉴自动抓取并翻译，版权归原作者所有；如需查看原文请点下方链接。
Despite the scandal, Dartmouth President Sian Leah Beilock wants more AI. (She wrote a piece for The Atlantic in September called “Why I Want More AI at Dartmouth.”) What’s crucial, though, is that the school’s leaders should “hold themselves to the highest standards,” she said. This appears to mean one main thing: disclosure.
In announcing Schnell’s resignation, Beilock wrote that “each of us brings a different perspective on how and when to incorporate AI into our work and our lives. Moreover, keeping Dartmouth at the forefront of AI inevitably means leading through an environment that is fluid and fast-changing. That is why, as leaders, it is so critical that we model the transparency and human judgment that we expect from our students and scholars.”
Who wrote this?
What does “disclosure” mean? In a September 2026 paper on AI detection tools, called “Who Wrote This?”, Schnell himself goes to great lengths to argue that “human-written” or “AI-written” is far too simple a binary. In his view, everything will become a mix of human judgment and AI work, and there’s nothing wrong with that. The key for him is that the human author takes full responsibility for the text, however it was composed and edited.
In the paper, Schnell lays out his method for producing it. It’s worth quoting at some length:
In September 2026, I asked OpenAI’s GPT-5.6 Pro whether an AI-written essay could ever be identified with certainty, and I suggested connecting the problem to Turing’s imitation game and to the “reverse” Turing test posed by AI-text detection. GPT-5.6 Pro connected the question to binary hypothesis testing and statistical decision theory, proposed early structures and titles, identified candidate literature, and generated portions of early drafts. I chose the problem, journal, audience, and eventual direction of the argument. I decided which examples and results should remain central, including the decision to retain the Liang study while confronting it with important counterevidence. I checked the cited literature, rejected or corrected claims that I judged inaccurate, corrected mathematical and conceptual errors, and reorganized the argument.
In revising the manuscript, I rewrote most sections and added substantial explanations. I occasionally asked GPT-5.6 Sol to provide language-editing assistance for sections I had rewritten. I created the figures and made the final decisions about the mathematics, interpretation, sources, organization, and wording. I take full responsibility for the resulting manuscript.
Before submitting the manuscript for publication, I also asked GPT-5.6 Pro and Anthropic Claude Fable 5.1 to review it critically and identify issues that reviewers might raise. I evaluated the issues they identified and made corrections where I judged them warranted.
Despite all this assistance, Schnell resists the idea that AI is a “co-author.” Instead, he writes, “Calling [the paper] ‘coauthored’ would introduce a different confusion. Mathematical tools have long made substantive contributions without thereby becoming authors… The point is not that the software contributed nothing. It is that contribution and authorship are different roles.”
Auto-fetched and translated by AI Atlas. All rights belong to the original author.