A couple of years ago, a lump appeared on my left thigh that caused me to limp for a whole year, with sharp pain from even the slightest exertion. Since I self-diagnosed it, it turned out to be a cyst, thankfully benign. It was surgically removed, and the problem disappeared. If I had blindly trusted the doctor, as most people tend to do, I would still be limping and undergoing physical therapy to alleviate the supposed "tendinitis," which was my primary care physician's diagnosis. It wasn't easy to convince her to order an ultrasound to confirm my diagnosis, which added bureaucracy to the waiting time for my surgery.
It is considered a philosophical fallacy (ipsa dixit) to unconditionally accept what an authority on the subject says. Regarding scientific knowledge, skepticism is fundamental. As I see it and experience it in my daily life, there are two sources of knowledge, colloquially speaking: external and internal. Formally, the method for acquiring knowledge from the former is defined as inductive, and that of the latter as hypothetico-deductive. Both lead us to formulate hypotheses and, in theory, theories. This last redundancy is not accidental; it underscores that theories in practice do not exist, at least not as proven hypotheses, according to the definition. In any case, they are hypotheses with a small margin of exceptions.
Knowledge that comes from outside originally came only through direct transmission from parents to children at a young age. In modern society, there is institutionalized education, courses, and books. Then came television, then the internet. Whatever the source of information, it is sensible and realistic to keep in mind that, even if the source is theoretically reliable—for example, someone who has dedicated their life to studying and working in the field being researched—no information can be blindly trusted.
I heard someone describe artificial intelligence tools as 'effective plagiarism machines,' based on the idea that the reliability of their information depends on the reliability of the original source. Using AI tools on the web can be seen as a lazy way to navigate. How does 'ipsa dixit' translate to using these tools? It's the same as when we used to repeat what we memorized from textbooks in school, or when we repeat what we read in yesterday's news as if it were our own opinion, or when we cut and paste information from web articles supposedly written by humans. The point remains the same.
Having explained my point of view, let me clarify. My novels predate the AI era. To translate the texts I publish on this website into English, I used artificial intelligence as assistance where needed, for example, with certain idiomatic expressions.
©2026 Walter Alejandro Iglesias.