Authorship: from et. al to et. AI

AI or artificial intelligence has made great strides in advancing a variety of industries. However, it is largely untouched academic research. One possible improvement to cur Starting to write a manuscript can be one of the most difficult parts. Advice like, "just get anything down" or "write drunk, edit sober" attest to the challenges of simply starting to write. Indeed, this piece alone took many different starts and often times sat idly while I thought about what I wanted to write. Given that scientific papers more or less have a similar structure and that they originate from data, what if we didn't have to start the manuscript ourselves but instead let a computer start the piece for us? This may seem like science fiction but computers are already writing news stories, financial reports, and sports commentary that is largely indistinguishable from human prose via natural language generation. Arguably this could save researchers time and cut down on hype and spin, possibly giving rise even to a new authorship lists (et. AI). Some might argue that this is detrimental and we should leave writing to humans. Maybe so but maybe not. How researchers write has already changed over time without adding computer-assistance in a negative way. Indeed,. Adding a method that is controlled might enhance the readability and limit the spin.  Indeed, had this article been written or edited by AI perhaps such a claim would have not even been made!
"But Josh!, you're forgetting so much about publishing! What about peer review?" Peer review, for all its imperfections and faults \cite{Smith_2010}, and there are many, can be useful. The question with reviewing is not a matter of if but how and when.

Peer review: open, post-publication, automated.