Dear Imre Horvath, your inquiry is correct and hope the RG Managing Team will consider it, and I wish you have already informed them, may be they consider further criteria or control of RG Scholars contributions. There was many threads about the intrusion of social media characters in RG platform, I was always against that, for the simple reason to keep RG area devoted to real scientific debates and contributions. My Regards

Imre Horvath A good question. Not only do I think it is still worth it to ask questions on RG, but it is important that people continue to do so. AI chat software, while impressive in it's extraction of large amounts of information, falls utterly short of human cognition. Not only do these kinds of software regularly "make stuff up" that is entirely untrue, much of research requires judgment, implicit assumptions, inferences, and tacit knowledge - which are precisely what AI chat software lacks. Many of the questions posed on RG are very situation-specific and require a nuanced understanding that is beyond the capability of AI - which can only provide very general suggestions.

In short, no - I am not concerned that chat-box responses will replace expert knowledge. At least, not anytime soon.

*Cognitive scientist Steven Pinker has a good take on this topic here:

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/02/will-chatgpt-replace-human-writers-pinker-weighs-in/

It is correct that Researchgate is infiltrated by bots of one kind or another but the dialogue between real researchers remains valuable.

The facility has of course also become a platform for political/ideological based arguments but some of these are utterly hilarious to read so can be tolerated.