Ryan Carpenter
@rwcarpenterphd.bsky.social
Assistant professor at the University of Notre Dame in clinical psychology.
Also, the AAAS rep says that an overall drop of 4% for science funding is "pretty solid."
A 4% cut in funding is just about anything but "solid"
A 4% cut in funding is just about anything but "solid"
January 10, 2026 at 3:40 PM
Also, the AAAS rep says that an overall drop of 4% for science funding is "pretty solid."
A 4% cut in funding is just about anything but "solid"
A 4% cut in funding is just about anything but "solid"
After you listen to @michaelhobbes.bsky.social @yrfatfriend.bsky.social enumerate the many problems with UPFs as a scientific construct, read this NYT article and the linked JAMA study and see how many of them you can find (spoiler: it's all of them)
www.nytimes.com/2025/11/13/w...
www.nytimes.com/2025/11/13/w...
Ultraprocessed Foods Linked to Colorectal Cancer Risk in Women Under 50
www.nytimes.com
January 7, 2026 at 11:44 PM
After you listen to @michaelhobbes.bsky.social @yrfatfriend.bsky.social enumerate the many problems with UPFs as a scientific construct, read this NYT article and the linked JAMA study and see how many of them you can find (spoiler: it's all of them)
www.nytimes.com/2025/11/13/w...
www.nytimes.com/2025/11/13/w...
I see the promise of AI here, the doors it could unlock.
But is AI the magic key? Or is it the key that's been determined most likely to work based on other keys someone saw once?
To say it without a tortured metaphor: I'm skeptical that AI can translate without putting its own stink on things.
But is AI the magic key? Or is it the key that's been determined most likely to work based on other keys someone saw once?
To say it without a tortured metaphor: I'm skeptical that AI can translate without putting its own stink on things.
December 17, 2025 at 1:22 AM
I see the promise of AI here, the doors it could unlock.
But is AI the magic key? Or is it the key that's been determined most likely to work based on other keys someone saw once?
To say it without a tortured metaphor: I'm skeptical that AI can translate without putting its own stink on things.
But is AI the magic key? Or is it the key that's been determined most likely to work based on other keys someone saw once?
To say it without a tortured metaphor: I'm skeptical that AI can translate without putting its own stink on things.
I am in awe of anyone writing in a language other than their first. If tomorrow every major scientific journal started publishing in German, I would have to quit.
Your English may be imperfect, but I am in awe of it.
So I don't know exactly how I feel about all this. Depressed, mostly.
Your English may be imperfect, but I am in awe of it.
So I don't know exactly how I feel about all this. Depressed, mostly.
December 17, 2025 at 1:22 AM
I am in awe of anyone writing in a language other than their first. If tomorrow every major scientific journal started publishing in German, I would have to quit.
Your English may be imperfect, but I am in awe of it.
So I don't know exactly how I feel about all this. Depressed, mostly.
Your English may be imperfect, but I am in awe of it.
So I don't know exactly how I feel about all this. Depressed, mostly.
Despite what my colleague said, though, I don't think it's really a time issue.
I think a lot of it is a confidence issue. And I get it.
(I see this in my international students, too. And some of my native English speaking students, for that matter)
I think a lot of it is a confidence issue. And I get it.
(I see this in my international students, too. And some of my native English speaking students, for that matter)
December 17, 2025 at 1:22 AM
Despite what my colleague said, though, I don't think it's really a time issue.
I think a lot of it is a confidence issue. And I get it.
(I see this in my international students, too. And some of my native English speaking students, for that matter)
I think a lot of it is a confidence issue. And I get it.
(I see this in my international students, too. And some of my native English speaking students, for that matter)
Why? My colleague offered two reasons:
1. Time. It takes a long time to write a review in a second language
2. To not sound super critical and hurt Americans' feelings 😂 (we love to dance around our words, Germans are direct)
My colleague felt it was appropriate to use AI for language corrections
1. Time. It takes a long time to write a review in a second language
2. To not sound super critical and hurt Americans' feelings 😂 (we love to dance around our words, Germans are direct)
My colleague felt it was appropriate to use AI for language corrections
December 17, 2025 at 1:22 AM
Why? My colleague offered two reasons:
1. Time. It takes a long time to write a review in a second language
2. To not sound super critical and hurt Americans' feelings 😂 (we love to dance around our words, Germans are direct)
My colleague felt it was appropriate to use AI for language corrections
1. Time. It takes a long time to write a review in a second language
2. To not sound super critical and hurt Americans' feelings 😂 (we love to dance around our words, Germans are direct)
My colleague felt it was appropriate to use AI for language corrections
Putting aside the hyperbole (sigh, can you even have AI without hyperbole?), I'm not surprised by the numbers.
Last month, I complained to my German co-author that a review we received seemed AI written. Their response: "Most of us non-native speakers do that now."
Last month, I complained to my German co-author that a review we received seemed AI written. Their response: "Most of us non-native speakers do that now."
December 17, 2025 at 1:22 AM
Putting aside the hyperbole (sigh, can you even have AI without hyperbole?), I'm not surprised by the numbers.
Last month, I complained to my German co-author that a review we received seemed AI written. Their response: "Most of us non-native speakers do that now."
Last month, I complained to my German co-author that a review we received seemed AI written. Their response: "Most of us non-native speakers do that now."
This is from the Frontiers report the article covers (Nature is so nice to help Frontiers spread the good news of AI!)
Only 16% of North American researchers report regular AI peer review use. Almost nobody reports frequent AI (Nature forgot to mention that), but it's more common in other regions
Only 16% of North American researchers report regular AI peer review use. Almost nobody reports frequent AI (Nature forgot to mention that), but it's more common in other regions
December 17, 2025 at 1:22 AM
This is from the Frontiers report the article covers (Nature is so nice to help Frontiers spread the good news of AI!)
Only 16% of North American researchers report regular AI peer review use. Almost nobody reports frequent AI (Nature forgot to mention that), but it's more common in other regions
Only 16% of North American researchers report regular AI peer review use. Almost nobody reports frequent AI (Nature forgot to mention that), but it's more common in other regions