//
sign in
Profile
by @danabra.mov
Profile
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
Profile
by @jimpick.com
AviHandle
by @danabra.mov
AviHandle
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
AviHandle
by @katherine.computer
EventsList
by @katherine.computer
ProfileHeader
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
ProfileHeader
by @danabra.mov
ProfileMedia
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePlays
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePosts
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePosts
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
ProfileReplies
by @danabra.mov
Record
by @atsui.org
Skircle
by @danabra.mov
StreamPlacePlaylist
by @katherine.computer
+ new component
Profile
Loading...
Professor of Theoretical Biology at the University of Würzburg
Chaitanya Gokhale









Loading...
1. How common is LLM use in scientific publishing, and how does it vary across field, publisher, journal prestige, author demographics etc.? @kylesiler.bsky.social has new paper in PNAS that addresses this question on a massive scale: 7.3 million papers from Elsevier, PLOS, MDPI, and Frontiers.
Our paper unpacking "fitness" is out doi.org/10.1093/gene.... How to define fitness depends on what question you ask. Selection acts on organismal vital rates, longer-term outcomes make sense for genetic lineages, models link them. "Invasion fitness" = speed, but sometimes probability matters more.
Such database control can help organize reality and the social contract itself. So maybe the backlash to AI isn’t about automation per se but about the fear of losing authorship over the structures that define us. Just my two pennies. do read/listen/watch the fabulous piece @theverge.com
Our social contract databases are the machine readable versions of our intuitions. So the issue may not be structure itself but control. The moment experiences, identities, and relationships become legible, new questions emerge Who defines the schema? Who gets to edit or delete? Who has power?
We say people don’t want to be turned into databases. I’m not sure that’s fully true. Humans have always sought structure to navigate complexity. Stories, identities, social roles and such are all ways of making life legible. They are, in a sense, human-readable “schemas.”
A brilliant piece by @reckless.bsky.social on the “software brain” and the flattening of human experience required to make AI work. I agree with almost all of it. But I think there’s a deeper tension here.
9d
28d
1mo
1mo
1mo
1mo
Are you looking for a PhD on the intersection between evolutionary and ecological theory? Join us @univie. Fully funded PhD position in fundamental eco-evolutionary theory, open to international students. Apply by 13.7.2026: ecoevo.owlstown.net/search Reposting appreciated. #evolbio #evoeco #ecology
Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly changing academic research, raising questions of who is adopting these tools and under what conditions. Th...
www.pnas.org
The diffusion of large language models in published academic articles | PNAS
15h
Carl T. Bergstrom
Joanna Masel
Chaitanya Gokhale
Chaitanya Gokhale
Abstract. Evolutionary “fitness” is operationalized in many different ways in models. Its role is to quantify that which is favored by natural selection. G
doi.org
Chaitanya Gokhale
Chaitanya Gokhale
Why there are so many definitions of fitness in models
ecoevo.owlstown.net
Jitka's EcoEvo Lab - Jobs
Our latest preprint doi.org/10.32942/X2V... explains why fitness can be defined in so many ways, and which version(s) you should use when. Fitness quantifies what natural selection favors. 1/
How does an animal choose between exploring for a better food source and taking advantage of a known one? Our recent work in Current Biology demonstrates how recent feeding and metabolic state dynamically influence fly local search. bit.ly/3PfrIv3 #Science #Neurosky #Foraging #Drosophila
Apr 12, 2024
2mo
doi.org
Why there are so many definitions of fitness in models
Joanna Masel
Jitka Polechová
I hadn't realised that Bob Trivers had died. What a complicated legacy. jjffh.com/tribute/deta...
2mo
Hannah Haberkern
Catherine Sheard