*most theorists

I think it would be a shame to declare that astrophysics can only be done within the professional field. What about retired colleagues or those who have moved on? Citizen scientists? Amateur observers? Experts from other fields? One could validate people, but that doesn't work well for arXiv.

From what I can tell, most of them think that they have the capacity to make a contribution (with LLMs). I thought Hogg's distinction about 'wanting the result' and 'wanting to do astrophysics' very useful in thinking about this.

There are a large number of people outside the professional academic system who want to write papers with LLMs. (Perhaps a separate problem, but still part of it, and it shows it's not all about advancement within the field)

Ah, but how? One obvious answer (which gets at what Hogg has to say about trust) is that it goes back to being a closed shop, reversing progress in open science.

I'm worried we're very close to this.

I'm reminded of the old saw about wanting AI to take care of the admin and the washing up, while we do the science and art, but getting the opposite. I want ML tools for better review, but instead we're spending human effort on reviewing ML output.

And then apologised to his compatriot who had one the gold medal for the distraction.

Just a note to say this post just proved genuinely useful, and may have prevented my annual winter sadness about my bike lock.

Where's that? Lovely stuff.

Bonus points for twice hitting 'by the end of the year' deadlines on New Years Eve along the way.

Which contains Swindon Town Football Club

So this considers both who we follow and who follows us? Interesting stuff.

Yes, you need some uk people (& for a bank account possibly a majority)

Setting up a small charity is pretty easy in the UK. I can help if you want?