With alt-text:

BEAR feet?? 🐻

Considering the quality of most existing research, which presumably makes up the training data... why would I want to enshittify my own work by using LLMs?

For me, the second reason it’s that everything it generates is done so in a way I can’t really interrogate. I just can’t trust it. “Hallucinations” are all it does - it’s just that sometimes they may be accurate. The first reason is the ecological and humans exploitation issues, it’s a tainted tech.

Springer-Nature statement

“Whilst the details of peer review are confidential, we can confirm that the article underwent two rounds of review from two independent peer reviewers, supporting an accept decision.”

How am I now expected to believe that two people looked at the paper twice and DGAF?

MEAL*, not email. I should probably take a break 🤣

Good question. Could it be to do with the outcome? Chopping veg + stirring onions both lead to a prepared email. Commenting on a paper and answering emails, to me, have different purposes/outcomes.

And all fall under “living”. So really, we are all just monotasking at a single task ;)

Fair!

Isn’t the first one just a single task - cooking?

There's no methods development that the observational medical literature can't misuse. Its TTE now, but you look back at when propensity scores were fashionable and see the same thing.

Here’s an example of one we did where working through the process made it clear that the data simply weren’t sufficient to answer the question of interest:

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1...

I don’t think everyone has grasped that TTEs are meant for when you *can’t* conduct an RCT, not for when you *don’t want to*