[Sharlin]

It's standard academic use of "increased", so I can't fault the authors for using it. Few in the intended target audience would read that as implying causation. One could of course argue that abstracts should be written with a larger audience in mind, but the job of a researcher is first and foremost to communicate as effectively as possible to other researchers.

[mwigdahl]

I don't think replacing "increased" with "greater" or "higher" would compromise communication to researchers at all, but it could cut down on misinterpretation and miscommunication in the wider science reporting world.

Seems like it would be overall beneficial.

[Sharlin]

Yes, but should we expect researchers to have the lay communication skills to even consider such things, to realize that the phrasing could be misinterpreted? Traditionally that's the job of the institute's PR department writing press releases. Anyone reading an abstract directly from its authors should also be expected to have basic academic reading skills.

[_kulang]

Sure— but that is different to “increases” which makes it seem as though they experienced increases due to AI use. The academic use of “increased” is more standard and in line with what you said, is kind of fine.