pull down to refresh
Yeah, I hate when in a chat discussion where some people are asking for advice, some other random person with no knowledge on the topic jumps in and says: "according to ChatGPT..." and states it like definite truth.
If I wanted to have ChatGPTs input, I'd have asked it myself. If I am asking fellow humans, it's because I believe that for this specific thing, I need a human with specialized knowledge.
For sure, human reviewers are still a crucial part of the process.
Autonomous AI agents are doing more bad than good, from what I've seen.
Yeah, but none of the examples that I cited have anything to do with actually reviewing papers on their scientific merits.
It's about flagging tortured sentences, negative citations, figure duplication, data manipulation, algebraic inconsistencies, etc.
I don't think there is any. At best, I see it as a possibly easier way to procure USD-pegged stablecoins, which are very popular here. People see the KRW as a weak currency and prefer buying gold, dollars, stocks, even Bitcoin, to escape the whimsical fiat.
As I mentioned to you before, people like gambling and speculating. They are now speculating on which bank or platform will be allowed to issue their stablecoin. They don't actually care about the stablecoin being issued.
It's like all the houses that are going up in price next to an area where a high-speed train will be built. They don't buy it because they actually want to use that train (it might still take years for it to be completed); they just buy it because they believe the next fool will buy it more expensively.
I think the upper or lower case convention led to something breaking when ~AI was created... Not sure of the outcome. My guess they are equivalent now
Once subterritories are a thing here on SN, I'll be happy to give you a chance of opening the ~Aerospace territory at a fraction of the monthly cost, within "my" ~science territory.
Yeah, that would be a good usecase I think.
I haven't really done it yet, but I know of some colleagues who use AI for a first reading of a paper before digging in deeper themselves. Due to recent bad experiences, I'm refraining from doing it, at least for now.
I'm sure there must be some AI wrapper somewhere, funded by millions in VC money, which basically does that.
Yeah, but I think the ways too use AI here is more into check basic methodology flaws,
negative paper citations, etc.
I would never rely on it to assess the novelty of state-of-the-art research.
If you want something as dumb as an LLM to help you
You should not become the spokesperson of OpenAI. You are way too honest in your assessment of current LLM iterations. And probably also of future ones, unless, maybe, something drastically changes in their design.
I still think human peer review is necessary. But there are tasks that can be realistically only be done by automated tools, at least, to the point of flagging them. A few of them were highlighted in the snippet I pasted. Humans should still assess how trustworthy the results are. Like anything spawned by current AI models, that, by definition, are stupid.
Yeah, i did not comment on that part as that fear of losing trust in science was the main concern of OP and how to respond to it (kinda like how PR teams gear up when their politician got caught cheating) rather than thinking about how to address the underlying issue. Maybe having those AI tools is a good thing...
To be fair, reading it again now, the author is more nuanced than the impression I got from my first reading.
Yeah, that's the risk when relying on agenda experts to interpret the original results.
Edward Belongia, a retired epidemiologist who studied vaccine safety for decades and who was not involved in the current research, told Stat News that this is "the largest and most definitive observational study on the safety of vaccine-related aluminum exposure in children" he knows of.
He said it "should put to rest any lingering doubts" about the potential health risks.
I'm sure the original authors are more nuanced than Edward here.
Incidentally, that's also how i found out about this study, a local Fauci-style expert who was also saying this is the final nail in the anti vaxxers coffin (it isn't, and it shouldn't be).
There are established methodologies that can be used without denying control group kids vaccines, which is the usual objection.
Can you elaborate? I'm not up to speed on this.
All of the above, and more~~
But yeah, it's good to know where we're at in terms of the main stream takes on Bitcoin. You cater to this need by posting these commentaries.
I've found that what helps, too, is to mentally escape the binary thinking that American two-party politics tries to impose on its people.
"Liberals" and "conservatives" mean something very different in the US than the rest of the world. The fringe stuff on both sides (wokeism, anti-vaxx, etc) has become defining characteristics that polarize more than anything else.
Yet, in a lot of non-US liberal media that I consume, a lot of the woke extremism is satirized, and no conservative will refuse to give their kids the common childhood vaccines.
By many metrics, I'd be called a liberal, a socialist, or even a communist.
Yet, I enjoy reading many takes here on SN that do not align with my own views. Doing so, I like to believe, I've evolved on many fronts, and come to realize a lot of the LARPing by myself, and others that I (used to) respect.
Not sure what the point of the article was, really. "Bitcoin" SEO trends well among FT readers, I suppose...?
Not sure what the point of the article was, really. "Keynesian economics" SEO trends well among SN readers, I suppose...?
(it does, I click on most of your posts~~)
50 sats \ 0 replies \ @south_korea_ln 25 Jul \ parent \ on: When did you last lose your temper? AskSN
True. I thought I was the most zen person ever until I got my son.
I discovered a new, less patient facet of myself.
You won't believe me, but even though I very rarely lose my temper, I lost it, just now, like 5 minutes ago, with a colleague over Telegram. I kept it mostly inside, but my words were just a little bit sharper, and I think he must have picked up on it. Logging off so that I can come back to my colleague with a more positive mindset in a few hours after playing with my son.
\Delta t = (-\nabla\phi_t) \cdot |(\vec{T} \times \vec{p})|\phi_tto the\nabla\phi_tversion without changing anything else?