Abstract: This editorial asks a question that lies beyond the usual debate over what artificial intelligence can do: when AI enters the full chain of knowledge production, who ultimately bears responsibility for problems, standards, directions, innovation, and consequences? “Audience” here does not refer only to passive readers at the end of communication. Authors, students, teachers, reviewers, editors, and interdisciplinary researchers continually move among receiving, judging, and producing knowledge. AI can improve retrieval, computation, organization, generation, and dissemination, and it can participate in judgment; however, it cannot become the endpoint of responsibility. This boundary is especially important in mechanics, where object identification, boundary definition, mechanism explanation, and validation must remain accountable to human researchers and scholarly institutions. According to an editorial-office survey of 646 research articles published in Applied Mathematics and Mechanics from 2021 to 2025, master’s students, doctoral students, and lecturers-authors still developing their scholarly judgment-account for approximately 72% of first authors. A journal therefore cannot remain merely an outlet for finished results. It must also serve as a lighthouse that helps emerging scholars distinguish weight from appearance, evidence from fluency, and real advances from technical packaging. The stronger the tools become, the less empty human judgment can afford to be.