It's mostly in medicine and psychology.

In topics where there is less reliance on relatively small numbers of cases (as is typical for medicine), there is also less reliance on marginal, but statistically "significant", findings.

So areas such as biochemistry, chemistry, even some animal studies, are less susceptible to over-interpretation or massaging of data.

LLMs would not be very useful in this instance, since truly novel (and correct) findings would not have formed part of their training datasets.

There's a surprising number of profiles in London on the YC Matching site. Almost as many as in SF or NY. Might be of interest to OP....

This kind of fabricated result is not a problem for practitioners in the relevant fields, who can easily distinguish between false and real work.

If there are instances where the ability to make such distinctions is lost, it is most likely to be so because the content lacks novelty, i.e. it simply regurgitates known and established facts. In which case it is a pointless effort, even if it might inflate the supposed author's list of publications.

As to the integrity of researchers, this is a known issue. The temptation to fabricate data existed long before the latest innovations in AI, and is very easy to do in most fields, particularly in medicine or biosciences which constitute the bulk of irreproducible research. Policing this kind of behavior is not altered by GPT or similar.

The bigger problem, however, is when non-experts attempt to become informed and are unable to distinguish between plausible and implausible sources of information. This is already a problem even without AI, consider the debates over the origins of SARS-CoV2, for example. The solution to this is the cultivation and funding of sources of expertise, e.g. in Universities and similar.

Non-experts actually attempting to become informed (instead of just feeling like they're informed) can easily tell the difference too. The people being fooled are the ones who want to be fooled. They're looking for something to support their pre-existing belief. And for those people, they'll always find something they can convince themselves supports their belief, so I don't think it matters what false information is floating around.

It seems to be kind of a new thing for laymen to be reading scientific papers. 20 years ago, they just weren't accessible. You had to physically go to a local university library and work out how to use the arcane search tools, which wouldn't really find what you wanted anyway. And even then, you couldn't take it home and half the time you couldn't even photocopy it because you needed a student ID card to use the photocopier.

Gov.uk is well known for its successful design. Does anyone know of a source that discusses why the design is/was so well designed and implemented? And did anyone get a knighthood out of it?

I sometimes read the GitHub issues, lots to learn.

The name derives from Reeler mice.

These mice have a mutation in the Reelin gene that causes them to move as if they were dancing a reel!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reeler

Where do you get this idea from? More than half of all major drug companies are based in Europe and Asia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_biomedical_com...

Ok, I think your list, and the fact that HALF are in 1 Country VS the entire rest of the world qualifies my statement. As well Roche, ASZ, and GSK do the bulk of their research in the US.

On top of that the largest outside of the US is China and there is very little trust of data coming from there in the Western World.

Maybe from the fact that half of all pharmaceutical revenues come from the US (and likely a much higher share of the profits). Single-payer systems are more cost-effective but definitely provide less revenue to pharmaceutical companies.

“We can overcharge patients” in no way leads to the logical conclusion that “more medicine is developed here.”

It just means your pharma companies can get away with higher profit margins.

Thanks for those sources!

It isn't a very good critique, as it assumes that the only reason people work is to avoid starvation.

People will work very hard to increase their income levels above that required solely for basic needs (i.e. UBI levels), see pretty much every non-minimum wage employee.

I think why people work at the jobs they do is a lot more complicated than that.

Many people do work to avoid starvation PLUS maintain whatever level of standards they've become comfortable with.

But the reason IMO people work non basic jobs is because if they are already forced to work their entire lives to avoid starvation, they might as well optimize. If I have to commute, and maintain a car, and be there for 40+ hours a week, I might as well invest in getting the most out of that as possible.

But once people have enough money to maintain their comfortable lifestyle for the rest of their life, many do retire.

Agreed. Such variable motivations for work and money apply to those on low incomes as much as they apply to those on high incomes.

There's no a-priori reason why one would expect those who receive UBI to be work-shy.

It makes you work shy because unless you have a high paying job, it doesn't make sense to work.

$3k with tons of free time all week.

Or add working for $3k extra money by giving up all your free time? Not worth it.

Unless of course apartments become $5k a month since that's about the money that a person on UBI plus a bad job has..

Why does that logic not apply to those on higher incomes?

Have a job with a free-market rate of $100/hr? Why not work for only 30 hrs a week?

Also, UBI levels are never proposed at $3k/week ($150k/yr), but rather at about $250/wk ($13k/yr), or only 2-3 hours of work per week for the $100/hr guy.

The 3k was per month... Just using the common phrase of working all week with only weekends off to show the comparison.

Your argument ignores the fact that people do not "need" to demand a full market wage if they already get UBI. Indeed, it is often claimed that state subsidies to the poor are in effect subsidies to their employers.

The situation exists where any low income person gets subsidies from the state, e.g. through cheaper housing, free schools and healthcare, etc. People are still incentivized to work even when they get these subsidies. UBI merely extends such subsidies to include food and other daily expenses.