Can AI tools automatically update articles according to changes in research fields

AI tools cannot currently achieve full autonomy in updating scholarly articles to reflect evolving research landscapes. This capability remains aspirational rather than operational. Key limitations prevent reliable automation. Firstly, AI lacks intrinsic comprehension of novel, complex research breakthroughs to autonomously determine necessary updates. Secondly, domain specificity and accurate citation integration require significant human configuration and oversight. Thirdly, tools risk propagating errors or fabricated content ("hallucinations") without rigorous human fact-checking and editorial control. The dynamic, nuanced nature of scientific progress necessitates expert judgement for interpretation and synthesis that current AI models cannot replicate. Where these tools demonstrate value is as assistive components within human-AI collaboration frameworks. They aid in identifying potential outdated content or emerging trends flagged in literature databases. Authors or editors then critically evaluate these prompts, using AI drafts as starting points. This process enhances efficiency in maintaining review articles or textbooks, but the core intellectual tasks of critical assessment, validation, and integration into coherent updates remain fundamentally reliant on human expertise. Their application is therefore supplementary, not substitutive, within scholarly publishing.