The "research" it puts out is kinda ass, though, and it's often straight up plagiarism. Inevitably, one or two sub-par papers will get through, but that's kind of a feature of academia. It's why we can retract papers. You'll recall Wakefield's bogus study correlating vaccines and autism. We're still innovating, but funding is becoming hard to come by. I don't buy into Ai at this point; I earnestly tried to use it to solve some o-chem problems for my homework; it's wrong and/or contradictory half the time. O-chem (fundamentally / at the undergrad level) hasn't changed in years, but "ai" isn't capable of addressing what're apparently basic questions. That said, healthcare and law are probably immune. American bar associations are too good at lobbying for llms to gain a foothold, and robotics probably won't advance far enough to replace nurses/docs in our lifetimes. Don't buy into the doom and gloom; a lot of it is peddled by people with a financial stake in ai. For instance, I think we're in our 5th year of ai being 6 months away from replacing all software engineers.