AI 中文总结
该研究探讨GPT模型的防御性写作，发现其随版本升级增多，更支持为预期审稿人写作的解释，AI审稿会放大该风格，人类读者对防御性重写接受度更低。
AI 中文摘要
研究人员越来越多地使用ChatGPT修改论文，而近期的GPT版本常常会缩小甚至撤回作者的主张。当给定材料不支持这些修改时，我们将此类变更称为防御性写作，并测试两种解释：模型纠正作者的过度主张，或是它为预期的审稿人而写作。我们要求GPT版本及其他开发者的模型重写ChatGPT问世前撰写的论文段落，或从列出论文方法与结果的证据表进行写作。防御性写作随GPT版本升级而增多，GPT-6-astra会直接撤回作者的主张，即便从证据表写作，它仍会添加最无依据的限定条件。结果支持预期审稿人解释，而纠正过度主张仅能解释一小部分。当仅要求模型润色时，防御性写作接近原文水平；提及审稿人时，防御性写作水平提升，一轮自我审稿后进一步提升。同时，GPT-6-astra撤回的主张中，不足十分之一是夸大的。AI审稿人给防御性重写的评分更高，而人类读者觉得它们更难读懂，且认为作者的确定性更低。将AI写作与AI审稿结合可能会放大这种风格。
英文摘要
Researchers increasingly use ChatGPT to revise their papers, and recent GPT versions often narrow or even retract the authors' claims. We call such changes defensive writing when the given material does not support them, and we test two explanations: the model corrects the authors' overclaiming, or it writes for an anticipated reviewer. We ask GPT versions and models from other developers to rewrite paragraphs from papers written before ChatGPT, or to write from an evidence sheet that lists a paper's method and results. Defensive writing grows with GPT version. GPT-6-astra retracts the authors' claims outright, and when it writes from the evidence sheet, it still adds the most ungrounded qualifications. The results favor the anticipated-review explanation, and correcting overclaiming explains only a small part. When the models are only asked to polish, defense stays near the level of the originals; mentioning review raises it, and one round of self-review raises it further. At the same time, fewer than one in ten of the claims GPT-6-astra retracts are overstated. AI reviewers score defensive rewrites higher, while human readers find them harder to read and the authors less certain. Combining AI writing with AI review may amplify this style.
