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.

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------

Of course

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.