@SGRodriques Cuts both ways, though. You can't have a model tell you about defense without also telling you how the defense is beaten. Same issue in info sec.
@Samuel_Gregson@ilbue63@Planarwalk You two are characterizing her as a populist conspiracy theorist crackpot, which she is not. That's why it looks like she struck a nerve. Her criticisms of physics research are pretty valid imo, she does not believe physicists are 'nefarious'. Just misguided.
@ilbue63@Planarwalk@Samuel_Gregson I get it but I think you're proving her point. If we won't know if it's applicable for decades, maybe it's not appropriate for the prize. There's other discoveries in basic science that are more directly beneficial, eg quantum error correction or materials.
@ilbue63@Planarwalk@Samuel_Gregson Maybe you could explain what benefit it has? Its no doubt a great discovery but let's not pretend its practically useful. I get you all dislike Sabine because she dogs on your field but maybe it hurts because she's right.
@Planarwalk@Samuel_Gregson If you watch the 15 second clip she actually says the discovery doesn't benefit humanity, which is the verbatim criteria of the Nobel.
@DrKarleenG I get it, but you're shirking your responsibility. Your job isn't to review human written submissions. It's to review submissions. If you agree to review for a venue that accepts AI written papers, then that's your mistake.