Why Did I Criticize That AI Paper Featured on the Cover of Nature?
When large models are published as 'scientific achievements,' what are the standards by which we judge them? With this question in mind, I wrote a critical commentary. Today, I want to share with everyone the story behind this article.
Recent Comments
Once knowledge has formed into a system, this system itself can evolve to generate new knowledge. In other words, it is not humans who create knowledge, but rather discover it, because it already exists—the system has already predicted it, unless humans challenge the entire system. Therefore, Springer nature named its new journal brand 'Discover,' which is quite accurate.
The work related to rare disease registration is progressing rapidly. At present, it is still in a process of continuous improvement; therefore, there is still room for achievement.
Listing the reviewers' names in journals like Frontiers in the papers to be published, in a sense, encourages reviewers to actively review and increases the chances of the papers being accepted. What are others' views on this?
As a top publishing venue, Springer nature rigorous and reliable review process has earned the trust of researchers worldwide, which is due to their different respective goal orientations.
Listing the reviewers' names in journals like Frontiers in the papers to be published, in a sense, encourages reviewers to actively review and increases the chances of the papers being accepted. What are others' views on this?
I want to know whether the speaking and writing we take for granted are not an illusion—a biological illusion. I imagine people would surely say that I am certain of all this because I firmly believe it, because it allows me to anticipate or achieve a certain outcome. Well, if we take the outcome as the measure of reality, then how can we determine the necessary relationship between this outcome and this phenomenon? Many times, it seems to depend more on our unthinking acceptance------
The Transfer of Cognitive Paradigms.
Of course
The Transfer of Cognitive Paradigms.
Kim, thank you for your generous reading. You asked how the transfer accumulates rather than occurring in discrete episodes. My four‑dimension framework was built precisely to answer that question. Since this article is under submission, I am unable to provide the full text. The following are explanations of the four dimensions
Cognitive asymmetry explains why the user loses the first round: the system’s “evidence‑based” rebuttals make constraints appear rational, so the user internalizes them without resistance.
Structural asymmetry explains why the user never sees the whole picture: the system’s design objectives and organizational interests remain hidden behind a locally cooperative interface.
Temporal asymmetry explains why the user never feels the change: “soft nudges” reshape cognitive horizons through countless small adjustments, each too small to trigger alarm.
Power asymmetry is the cumulative outcome: external constraints become self‑imposed ones. The user no longer needs to be told what is “unconventional”; they pre‑emptively avoid it.
Your RLHF compression finding (1.70x) shows what is being lost. My four dimensions show how that loss is realized, accumulated, and finally naturalized through everyday interaction.
In the future, it may be possible to track the career development trajectories of these surveyed students to determine whether their initial satisfaction with career choices has changed over time and to identify the potential causes of such changes, thereby providing support for establishing more durable predictions.