> One comparison revealed detailed structural parallels between biological materials and Beethoven’s 9th Symphony, highlighting shared patterns of complexity through isomorphic mapping.
> The resulting material integrates an innovative set of concepts that include a balance of chaos and order, adjustable porosity, mechanical strength, and complex patterned chemical functionalization. We uncover other isomorphisms across science, technology and art, revealing a nuanced ontology of immanence that reveal a context-dependent heterarchical interplay of constituents.
I encounter this take more and more, where jargony sciencey language is dismissed as "generated". We forget that actual people do write like this, and self-satisfied researchers especially so.
More likely, this author read a bit too much Deleuze and is echoing that language to make the discovery feel more important than incidental.
If you write in a manner that gets you dismissed as a chatbot, then you've still failed to communicate, even if you physically typed the characters in the keyboard. The essence of communication isn't how nice the handwriting is, its how usefully you've conveyed the information.
Paste it into any AI detector (e.g., https://quillbot.com/ai-content-detector). They're not perfect, but they're pretty good in the aggregate. This text is almost certainly generated by an LLM.
Note, sentences highlighted in yellow means one or more models disagree.
The sentence that makes me think this might not be AI generated is
"Researchers can use this framework to answer complex questions, find gaps in current knowledge, suggest new designs for materials, and predict how materials might behave, and link concepts that had never been connected before."
The use of "and" before "predict how materials" was obviously unnecessary and got caught by both gpt-4o and claude 3.5 sonnet and when I questioned Llama 3.5 about it, it also agreed.
For AI generated, it seems like there are too many imperfections, which makes me believe it might well be written by a human.
I'm not sure this is a useful test. You can most certainly get an LLM to infinitely "correct" or "improve" its own output. But take the "The work uses graphs..." paragraph and plop it into an AI text detector like Quillbot. It's a long and non-generic snippet of text, and it will score 100% AI. This is not something that happens with human writing. Sometimes, you get false positives on short and generic text, sometimes you get ambiguous results... but in this case, the press release is AI.
I have no doubt the author of the press release used LLM to help them, but I'm not convinced that this was fully generated by AI. Since you got me thinking about this more, I decided to run the sentence across my tool with a new prompt that will ask the LLM to decide. Both Claude and Llama believe there is a 55% or more chance while GPT-4o and GPT-4o-mini feel it is less than 55%.
I created another prompt that tries to better analyze things and they (models) all agree that it is most likely AI (+60%). The highest was gpt-4o-mini at 83%.
It's definitely a run on academic writing that didn't get enough editing. It's consistently bad in ways LLMs typically correct for.
Run your papers through AI and have them identify simple corrections. It's like having an endlessly patient English Literature major at your beck and call.
Lots of claims that artists are confined to their media. This assertion is false. Artists mix in new technology, innovate all the time.
A lot of emphasis is put on the history of ideas, establishing a pedigree for the situationists, as if that pedigree lent credibility. This is juvenile.
CEOs don't need an offense to be fired. They are entirely at will. The board can fire a CEO because it feels like it. The offense could be as muddy as 'we broadly dislike the current direction'.
CEOs don't need an offense to be fired. They are entirely at will. The board can fire a CEO because it feels like it. The offense could be as muddy as 'we broadly dislike the current direction'.
I didn't read it as a joke. Young adults can be incredibly destructive if left to their own devices.
> The relationship between aging and criminal activity has been noted since the beginnings of criminology. For example, Adolphe Quetelet (1831/1984) found that the proportion of the population involved in crime tends to peak in adolescence or early adulthood and then decline with age. In contemporary times, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report (UCR) arrest data (1935–1997), particularly the Crime Index (homicide, robbery, rape, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, auto theft), document the consistency of the age effect on crime.
This is something I always thought. AGI must learn what simple ideas such as 'a thing' are, how to find a path (look at how arboreal species navigate) and how that relates to movement, etc. Our physical interactions with the world, as much as our senses, inform everything we do about the world.
I do not understand why we would want AGI though. Seems like we already have humans for that.
The other test is also, "How does this action help prevent Putin's next invasion?" Actions should not only be about applying pressure now, it's about destroying a literally imperialist government's ability to win its wars. So anything which undermines any aspect of the Russian economy is fair game. If we can keep them from training people, good. If we can keep them from raising taxes, good. If we can keep them from feeding their troops, good. If we can usher in strikes over unpaid wages, good. If East European stores stop importing Russian goods, good.
Russia does not invade in reaction to NATO expansion. NATO expands in reaction to Russian invasions. Notice how NATO does not expand militarily. Not once. Notice how Russia expands militarily, every time.
"Allied leaders also agreed at Bucharest that Georgia and Ukraine, which were already engaged in Intensified Dialogues with NATO, will one day become members. In December 2008, Allied foreign ministers decided to enhance opportunities for assisting the two countries in efforts to meet membership requirements by making use of the framework of the existing NATO-Ukraine Commission and NATO-Georgia Commission – without prejudice to further decisions which may be taken about their applications to join the MAP."
Georgia was in August 2008. You have the wrong quote. This quote is from from April 2008
>NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO.
Following the setup of NATO, 18 further countries joined it. Most (11) of them joined when Putin was in charge of Russia. Putin is NATO's best recruiting sergeant.
Russia is the only country in the world with a massive formal alliance of major world powers reigned against it. This is because of continued Russian aggression and atrocities going back a long time.
>NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO.
After the meeting Putin said NATO expansion was a direct threat to Russia.
The Russo-Georgia War was August 2008.
So Georgia being attacked was clearly after attempted NATO expansion east.
In November 2013 the president of Ukraine, Yanukovych, decided to not agree to an EU deal. There were protests in Ukraine which would end in a coup. Some of the European countries try to work out a deal for an election but the protesters aren't going for it. Yanukovych then flees the country.
The new government is very pro West / EU. What then happens in Ukraine starts making anti-Russian moves like removing minority (Russian) language laws.
Russia then attacks Crimea in February 2014.
Again, Russia only attacked after Ukraine was attempting to work out a deal with the EU and after they showed they would use force (the coup) to get it.
Don't get me wrong. I am against Russia attacking both Georgia and Ukraine, but it seems quite clear that Russia only attacks after they start getting too cozy with the West.
Einstein did not really have a vendetta against Quantum physics. He won a Nobel for having established the basic theory of the photoelectric effect. I know what you mean, but it's not like he thought the idea was ridiculous, he came up with it in his youth.
This is not serious.