I understood all the words there.
There is a big difference between jargon and, in general - presenting things using unnecessarily complicated language. Give this abstract to any editor, and I reassure you - they will rewrite it.
Even a simple GPT4o prompt ("Rewrite the following abstract for grammar, clarity, and readability.") gives
> This perspective highlights how epistemically unfounded and ethically harmful paradigms are reintroduced into scientific literature through machine learning (ML) and examines the connections between these two areas of failure. We use the resurgence of physiognomic methods, enabled by ML, as a case study to illustrate the damaging effects of ML-promoted junk science. We summarize and analyze several studies, focusing on how flawed research can lead to social harm. Additionally, we investigate various factors contributing to poor practices in applied ML. Finally, we provide resources on best research practices for developers and practitioners.
and for Claude 3.5 Sonnet:
> This perspective examines how scientifically unfounded and ethically problematic paradigms are reintroduced into scientific literature through machine learning (ML) techniques. We explore the connections between these two aspects of failure. Using the resurgence of physiognomic methods facilitated by ML as a case study, we demonstrate the harmful consequences of ML-legitimized pseudoscience. We provide a summary and analysis of several such studies, focusing on how unsound research can lead to social harm. Additionally, we investigate various factors contributing to poor practices in applied ML. Finally, we offer resources and recommendations for best research practices to guide developers and practitioners in the field.
Both versions are just an iteration; a human editor could do it better.
For context, I authored quite a few papers in quantum information theory. It takes work to present work in the simplest form possible.
There is a big difference between jargon and, in general - presenting things using unnecessarily complicated language. Give this abstract to any editor, and I reassure you - they will rewrite it.
Even a simple GPT4o prompt ("Rewrite the following abstract for grammar, clarity, and readability.") gives
> This perspective highlights how epistemically unfounded and ethically harmful paradigms are reintroduced into scientific literature through machine learning (ML) and examines the connections between these two areas of failure. We use the resurgence of physiognomic methods, enabled by ML, as a case study to illustrate the damaging effects of ML-promoted junk science. We summarize and analyze several studies, focusing on how flawed research can lead to social harm. Additionally, we investigate various factors contributing to poor practices in applied ML. Finally, we provide resources on best research practices for developers and practitioners.
and for Claude 3.5 Sonnet:
> This perspective examines how scientifically unfounded and ethically problematic paradigms are reintroduced into scientific literature through machine learning (ML) techniques. We explore the connections between these two aspects of failure. Using the resurgence of physiognomic methods facilitated by ML as a case study, we demonstrate the harmful consequences of ML-legitimized pseudoscience. We provide a summary and analysis of several such studies, focusing on how unsound research can lead to social harm. Additionally, we investigate various factors contributing to poor practices in applied ML. Finally, we offer resources and recommendations for best research practices to guide developers and practitioners in the field.
Both versions are just an iteration; a human editor could do it better.
For context, I authored quite a few papers in quantum information theory. It takes work to present work in the simplest form possible.