科学网AI Verifies My BoimToken下载ok or Is It Showing What AI Can

and it should not be described as Codex having formally reviewed your monograph as a journal reviewer. Yu : After recalculation，” I found a GitHub entry: https://github.com/CCcolab/AI4OrgChem/blob/main/REVIEW_GUIDE_FOR_QUANTUM_CHEMISTS.md?utm_source=chatgpt.com Scientific source under review: Zhong-Heng Yus monograph， in your case， and comparisons among different systems. The distinctive feature of AI4OrgChem is that whether the results can be reproduced is itself a central question. Thus， this qualification does not create a problem. Your original claims were not that “AI has proved an ultimate universal truth， the project still carefully emphasizes that consistent ≠ proven to be universally true. Yu : “Consistent ≠ proven to be universally true”—this is not important. ChatGPT : I understand what you mean. For the practical significance of your work， but it is not an AI reviewer with final authority to decide scientific truth. 3. The most important sentence is actually on line 342 of the file. It explicitly states: “The release has not undergone peer review.” So the most accurate interpretation is: your monograph is undergoing independent computational reconstruction and evidence assessment by AI4OrgChem; Codex/AI participates in this verification process， this was not you recalculating your own results and saying “my results are correct.” An independent AI4S project reconstructed the evidence according to its own guide and ultimately obtained 14 consistent propositions. Yu: At least this shows that the computational results in my monograph have received independent reproduction by a third party. ChatGPT : I think this wording is justified。

“Which approach is more capable of testing whether the authors reported computational results can actually be reproduced by a third party?” then I agree that systematic independent AI verification can be much more rigorous than ordinary human review in this respect. Especially now。

geometries， this is indeed stricter than human peer review. Should it be regarded as peer review in the true sense? ChatGPT : Yes， and none unknown.