Post
Ironically, as showed, there are telltale signs that the piece was edited with ChatGPT: many links include "?utm_source=chatgpt.com" If even Science editorial team cannot afford good human editing, that's worrying
12:17 AM · Jul 18, 2026
7 out of 14 links, to be precise. The "utm_source" is what happens if you ask ChatGPT to list sources of information or provide web links, and you copy-paste them directly.
I think usage of ChatGPT for this purpose without acknowledging (with model name and version number) is contrary to Science's AI usage guidelines. www.science.org/cms/asset/86...
That’s a great hero image. My favorite pop culture call-backs are those that I understand.
My brain was like "You've seen this before" and I was like "nah, that's just a style I see everywhere" and only now reading your comment do I slap my head—back in my youth I had damn well every album even
Hi, this is Holden emerging from my Bluesky hiatus to tell everyone that when checking the links in the piece, I used ChatGPT as my search engine (does anyone use Google anymore?). The piece was written by me and edited by humans. So all the links were checked by me and again by our copyeditors.
This seems to be a common practice… or a way to identify potential AI slop :)
Unfortunately now Google itself indexes pages with the ChatGPT tracking in them. I had a thread - bsky.app/profile/bogi...
Bogi Takács / WE'RE HERE ToC announced!
 @bogiperson.bsky.social
· 10d
Absolutely WTF, just searched for a book which had a chapter from me in Google and it came up *in Google* with the tracking "utm_source=chatgpt.com" in the link. (Probably needless to say, but I wasn't using ChatGPT.)
You almost have to admire the single minded devotion to making the internet completely useless for anyone who cares about reality lol
enshittifying it builds the demand for the more profitable thing they'll sell you once the open web is completely unusable next year
maybe letting a public company govern the most powerful library science database in history was a mistake infrastructureinsights.fund/wp-content/u...
Does this mean that the science editorial team would be banned from publishing arxiv preprints 😅
To be fair, the search engines have been degraded/sabotaged/enshittified so much at this point that there is, or will soon be, no other choice than to use the bots for searching.
The only working ones will be the paid ones, and even if it's pennies, that'll be enough to keep them mostly unused.
The problem there is that many of them (all?) rely on the google and/or bing index. For example Kagi that seems to get suggested in the thread, whose own index is quite small...
True of most of them. DDG uses Bing+ its own crawlers and then filters to help reduce crap.
Is it possible those are because the typesetters are using it?
Yes, the typesetters are going to be blamed. Or an intern, possibly.