[tarcon]

This is a actual prompt in the video: "What are the papers in the literature that are most relevant to this draft and that I should consider citing?"

They probably wanted: "... that I should read?" So that this is at least marketed to be more than a fake-paper generation tool.

[mFixman]

You can tell that they consulted 0 scientists to verify the clearly AI-written draft of this video.

The target audience of this tool is not academics; it's OpenAI investors.

[jtr1]

At last, our scientific literature can turn to its true purpose: mapping the entire space of arguable positions (and then some)

[floitsch]

I felt the same, but then thought of experts in their field. For example, my PhD advisor would already know all these papers. For him the prompt would actually be similar to what was shown in the video.