Hallucinate cites? Claims that contradict the content of the paper? Conspiratorial tone implying her program of research was silenced by shadow forces? Loose understanding of statistics?
How can a rigorous scientist show such lapses in judgment?
Unless...
Just finished migrating my academic website to Quarto, with Claude Code's invaluable help.
To celebrate, a new blog post: "What I Keep Flagging in My Reviews": quentinandre.net/posts/what-i...
New blog post: Make Your Papers Legible to Machines (They’re Already Reading)
quentinandre.net/posts/legibl...
Yep yep yep quentinandre.net/post/making-...
"Reviewers... are going to become less tolerant of these “obvious” big mistakes now that they can be identified by a variety of cheap tools [GenAI review apps] prior to publication... The least we can do is ask them to review the best possible version..."
via @quentinandre.bsky.social
Very important paper, both empirically (for our understanding of human behavior) and methodologicaly (for our future inquiries into human behavior).
After a popular psychological manipulation turns out to be non-replicable (e.g., "in a seemingly unrelated task" behavioral priming interventions), it is always fun to go back and find the papers who reported "p < 10e-8" effects.
No, wait, it's not fun actually.
excellent piece, and should be required reading for anyone skeptical of the technical capabilities and policy implications of AI.
there are certainly exceptions, but by and large, the political left is currently treating what should be a five-alarm fire like a distasteful spectator sport.
My husband asked me to help him identify this material — is this floss?