请问HN：使用人工智能工具进行博士文献综述是否不诚实？
我是一名结构工程的博士生。我的论文主题是关于在乌克兰常用软件中使用大型语言模型（LLM）代理来自动化有限元分析（FEA）计算。我现在正在撰写文献综述，并且我已经开发了一个个人本地仪表板，帮助我管理文献综述的过程。
我使用LLM代理来填写LaTeX模板（以自动化格式化，同时可以使用IDE查看差异）在GitHub仓库中。然后，我运行ChatGPT Pro来收集与我的主题相关的所有论文（以及相关信息）。接着，我收集那些在线可用的论文，确保PDF文件可以获取。我有一个特殊的文件夹结构，里面存放着纯文本文件，如Markdown和JSON。
这个仪表板的想法是这样的：我通过网页聊天运行Codex，以识别与我的论文主题相关的引用及其相关性，它将这些引用整合成与每个引用相关的一系列主张，并附上链接。然后，我手动审查每个引用和每个主张，并勾选相应的框。还有一个按钮可以运行验证脚本，以验证确切的引用确实存在于PDF中。通过这种方式，我可以收集真实的证据，并在阅读这些材料时获得新的见解。
我记得在英国攻读硕士学位时，所有这些工作都是手动完成的。那是一段非常糟糕和乏味的经历，部分原因是我有注意力缺陷多动障碍（ADHD）。
所以我的问题是，这样做算不算不诚实？
因为我可以为文献综述中的每个主张辩护，因为我建立了验证流程并手动审查了每一个主张。我可以说，我对文献的理解比如果我自己手动阅读并标记所有内容要更深刻。但我知道许多大学会将任何AI生成的文本视为学术不端。
我真的不太理解这种立场背后的原则。因为如果你将校对的任务外包出去，没人会在意。当你使用Grammarly时，情况也是如此。但如果我使用LLM从经过验证、结构化且经过人工审查的证据中生成文本——这可能会被视为不诚实。
查看原文
I'm a PhD student in structural engineering. My dissertation topic is about using LLM agents in automating FEA calculations on common Ukrainian software that companies use. I'm writing my literature review now and I've vibecoded a personal local dashboard that helps me manage the literature review process.<p>I use LLM agents to fill up the LaTeX template (to automate formatting, also you can use IDE to view diffs) in github repo. Then I run ChatGPT Pro to collect all relevant papers (and how) to my topic. Then I collect the ones available online, where the PDFs are available. I have a special structure of folders with plain files like markdown and JSON.<p>The idea of the dashboard is the following: I run the Codex through a web chat to identify the relevant quotes — relevant for my dissertation topic — and how they are relevant, it combines them into a number of claims connected with each quote with a link. And then I review each quote and each claim manually and tick the boxes. There is also a button that runs the verification script, that validates the exact quote IS really in the PDF. This way I can collect real evidence and collect new insights when reading these.<p>I remember doing this all manually when I was doing my master's degree in the UK. That was a very terrible and tedious experience partially because I've ADHD<p>So my question is, is it dishonest?<p>Because I can defend every claim in the review because I built the verification pipeline and reviewed manually each one. I arguably understand the literature better than if I had read it myself manually and highlighted all. But I know that many universities would consider any AI-generated text as academic misconduct.<p>I really don't quite understand the principle behind this position. Because if you outsource the task of proofreading, nobody would care. When you use Grammarly, the same thing. But if I use an LLM to create text from verified, structured, human-reviewed evidence — it might be considered dishonest.