The paper’s title is catchy and promising. However, readers will find themselves immersed in another trendy cry that criticizes artificial intelligence (AI) evolution while at the same time promoting it, because the paper is just nonsense. I have never reviewed for Computing Reviews in such a manner (that is, I have never called a paper “nonsense”). But this time I am compelled to support the honesty, credibility, and authenticity of the reviewing process.

I was outraged when I read that “some reviews are so poorly done that submitters find themselves asking if their papers were even read at all, let alone read by actual professionals.” Trim fails to acknowledge the other side, that is, the many reviewers who provide constructive comments that lead to enhancements of the research material (which is also accredited by authors in contrast to what she says). Furthermore, to fire up her claim, Trim attacks the brand Gucci, claiming, by generalizing, that the population is ignorant; just attracted to the trademark “GUCCI”; and incapable of evaluating “art” (not to mention art design). This is what she says: “How much does it matter that the bag is REALLY a designer bag? Is it the craftsmanship or the name that gives the bag its value?” I wish she had approached the issue of responsible AI differently.

Though the paper was accepted by ACM SIGCAS Computers & Society, with all due respect, there is no need to read it. The first two-thirds consists of claims from nonscientific journals without any substantial material. A short paragraph at the end of the paper is a call for responsible AI. Thank you for finally letting us know what we already know! Furthermore, included statements such as these are not general and not absolutely true: “All research products have to do is get published in a conference with an insane level of exclusivity,” and “many researchers in computer science care very much about authorship.”

Many scientists--maybe all--and a majority of scientific authors care deeply about contributing to the virtues of science and are proud just doing so, enjoying their endeavors in this regard. It is unclear to me why this paper was accepted; but, of course, everyone has an opinion. This is mine, but readers can decide for themselves.