Bogdan Enache retweeted
🏛️ Romanian archeologists discover a Roman sarcophagus, still sealed, from the 3rd / 4th century AD in what was the Great Necropolis of the ancient city of Tomis (today's Constanța, on the Black Sea)
It belonged to a young boy (~4 y.o.), and also contained toy horse and rooster.
It belonged to a young boy (~4 y.o.), and also contained toy horse and rooster.
🔴 Descoperire la Constanța: un sarcofag roman intact, în necropola Tomisului
🔗Mai multe detalii
cotidianul.ro/descoperire-de…
10
31
325
14,583
And @LucaNiculescu is now officially my first follower to become a head of state.
Onwards and upwards!
Onwards and upwards!
I would like to congratulate @LucaNiculescu on being my first follower to be nominated PM in a European country.
Thank you @NicusorDanRO
0
0
2
240
And yet the average peer review stands a good chance of being significantly better.
I see a phenomenon which is dangerously increasing: to receive review of a paper clearly made by #AI rather than a colleague. None can interpret the goodness of a paper? or we want to be smarter and to provide a review even we do not have time to make it? I am really and seriously concerned especially because it is easy to think that many analyses and papers from these colleagues have been done instead by #AI. In my small corner, I am making a list of these colleagues as if repeated in times I sorry to say they will lose their reputation to me. @EIJCaseReports @EuroInterventio @JACCJournals @CircAHA @NEJM @TheLancet @DFCapodanno @SVRaoMD
0
0
5
438
AI researchers go Lung in the Game.
"So many AI researchers have started smoking as a way of signaling to other researchers how much they believe in AI," Palantir CTO Shyam Sankar said. bit.ly/4jiBFoy
0
0
2
237
Bogdan Enache retweeted
EKG time. Patient in the 30s with the below EKG. Interpretation? @ShariqShamimMD @mirvatalasnag @YChatzizisis @realarainmd
7
13
32
15,226
This is exactly what medicine has been doing for decades now:
apply whatever drug/procedure gets the job done in randomized controlled trials with less emphasis on whatever the most emitent professor of medicine thinks the mechanism of action is.
apply whatever drug/procedure gets the job done in randomized controlled trials with less emphasis on whatever the most emitent professor of medicine thinks the mechanism of action is.
2
0
1
159
Bogdan Enache retweeted
Terance Tao: Imagine prescribing a drug no one understood.
Medical community:
Medical community:
113
889
13,004
293,001
Bogdan Enache retweeted
I would like to congratulate @LucaNiculescu on being my first follower to be nominated PM in a European country.
Thank you @NicusorDanRO
Thank you @NicusorDanRO
1
1
4
386
I would like to congratulate @LucaNiculescu on being my first follower to be nominated PM in a European country.
Thank you @NicusorDanRO
Thank you @NicusorDanRO
1
1
4
386
Prepare the Wikipedia page for another literary scandal.
It's French...
It's won prizes...
It's AI...
What's not to like?!?
It's French...
It's won prizes...
It's AI...
What's not to like?!?
Avez-vous entendu parler de ce roman ? C’est le « phénomène de la rentrée littéraire ». Il est lauréat du Prix Fnac, du Prix Méduse, du Prix Première Plume, fortement pressenti pour le Prix Renaudot, et il est en lice pour les prix Goncourt, Femina, Médicis et Décembre. Ah oui, e traduction dans 20 langues.
Eh bien selon Pangram, ce roman est rédigé presque intégralement par une Intelligence Artificielle. Nous avons testé plusieurs passages, à divers endroits du manuscrit, pour presque toujours le même résultat : 100% IA (cf les deux premiers chapitre dans le tweet ci-dessous).
Rappelons que Pangram est de loin le détecteur d’IA le plus fiable : son taux de faux positifs est de 0,0041%, soit environ un texte humain sur 24 400. Sur 996 273 textes antérieurs à 2022, Pangram en classe uniquement 14 (0,0014%) comme étant partiellement écrits par l’IA.
La probabilité que vingt passages d’un même livre (et il y a bien plus de 20 signalements dans le roman) soient identifiés à tort par Pangram comme étant produits par une IA s’élève donc à 0,0041% puissance 20, soit 0,1802 × 10⁻⁸⁵ %, c’est à-dire 0 suivi de 85 zéros après la virgule.
N’aurait-il pas été plus honnête que l’auteur crédite son co-auteur ?
1
0
1
348
