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
High-quality datasets are a crucial foundation for the reliability of clinical AI.
The problem is that such distinctions may lead to a clearer separation of adjudication and control within hierarchical social structures, making the existing structuring more pronounced.
Recently, I received two manuscripts. At first, I did not pay attention to the authors' declarations. Judging from the manuscripts from two authors from different European countries, the language quality differed—one was good, while the other was mediocre. However, after returning the feedback on these two manuscripts and a few days later, I happened to look at them again and suddenly noticed that both disclosed AI-assisted writing. Then, I changed my inherent view that AI-assisted writing must yield excellent results. I think this difference may result from the different individuals using AI. Since AI is trained to align with human needs—this could be an algorithmic mechanism contributing to AI hallucination—it imitates the user’s thought style when generating text. Recently, AI seems to be trained to refuse to provide accommodating content in certain situations, but overall, large language models may have improved, though the progress does not seem particularly significant. Human review is crucial. Moreover, with the use of different versions of large language models, new challenges will emerge.
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