Peer reviewers should be paid.
I’d rather a journal charges a little more to pay peer reviewers so they can review quickly with a turnaround time under 2 weeks. A lot of academic incentives are built around “for the good of science” but in this day and age that’s not enough if we really want to accelerate science.
Incentivize earlier review with higher pay, open up a market of review so it doesn’t get stuck in one person’s desk. We sit on great discoveries so long that by the time it’s published it’s old news. That’s got to change
There’s no way B̶a̶r̶c̶e̶l̶o̶n̶a̶ Spain is beating Messi’s Argentina in this WC final. That’s their idol they grew up emulating. Deep inside they want him to win probably more than they do. And I don’t blame them. They get to witness history and that’s a win for them
Part of Messi’s aura for majority of us has to come from the fact that because we don’t understand Spanish, everything we get from him comes from the pitch. And on the pitch, he’s a beauty to watch. And that’s why football brings us together because it transcends languages
I hear this argument a lot as a case against having regulatory checks/standard bodies. The existence of SBs wouldn’t necessarily slow down progress, but rather serve as an additional layer of QA to the frontier labs. This should not affect competition.
It’ll give the experts a hot second to “make sense of new inventions and help propose ways to (at least try to) safeguard them. Because all it takes it ONE mistake from a frontier lab to, in borrowing Demis’s analogy, burn an entire ecosystem from the fire they created from sand. I’d like to believe every economy in the world would like to join hands to avoid such scenario.
The way we do science is rapidly changing. But the leaders are still stuck on that one time they tried AI a year ago and it hallucinated (or didn’t perform some magic they expected), so they gave up. And they’re discounting everything else till now. Tragic.
@sama 5.6 Sol is insanely good at design. First model to impress me on that front. The attention to detail, the cohesiveness, the color choices- wow. Every single time I spin out a mockup I’m baffled by the output. S/o to the team
The AI for science wave leans heavily comp bio - Claude Science, Codex, Biomni, all of it. Experimental bio folks like me are getting left out. We’re fixing that soon, stay tuned 👀
I just panicked a little before watching this, thinking Claude just took us out of business before we even launched our product - phew! We need better tools for researchers and it’s awesome to see the space getting some attention!
Introducing Claude Science, a new app designed with every stage of research in mind.
Artifacts traced to their code, environments managed on demand, and 60+ optional scientific databases that you can connect.
Available now in beta.
@garyalsmith My pleasure, boss! If you’re in Boston and you want a taste of Ghana, RedRed Kitchen is the place to go! Also vending at Boston’s FIFA Fan fest!
I’d also add that treating data that didn’t fit with a hypothesis for that particular publication as less important, desensitized researchers from sharing all data - positive or negative. There’s so much unpublished data out there that could answer so many questions without re-experimenting