PatronBernard

Are we in a hurry then? Can you give examples of where important mathematical research was delayed because of peer review errors?

And yes, I am arguing that they should not be released if they cannot be verified within a reasonable amount of time.

Also, how will this impact PhD student who might need this research to get their career started. How will it affect the inflow of junior researchers?

By the way, your tone is very unpleasant. Go outside and touch grass, or have a wank for all I care. You are insufferable.

Normal peer review works by submitting the article to the appropriate journal, suggesting some preferred reviewers that have expertise in the subject, after which the rest of the process ideally is then orchestrated by an experienced editor.

If a journal receives a paper that is unreadable, it is outright rejected with the comment that it should be made readable, regardless the results in that paper. What is the point of having results if you are unable to convince your audience of those results? You could just as well just sit on them and never communicate them. What is harmful about this process?

If it were submitted to a journal, it would be outright rejected. We should give the peer review process -however flawed it is- some credit here. Dumping hundreds of AI-generated preprint articles on the field should not be allowed.

This makes me think: how would someone like Mark Zuckerberg handle this for his own internet presence? Or does he sidestep this issue completely by having assistants for nearly everything? I can imagine he doesn't do much more than look at .ppts and fire off emails. Do data brokers have any information at all on this guy?

Uh copper theft was quite a problem along Belgian train lines for a while.

Also, "rouge" is one of the oldest spelling mistakes on the internet. ALL BLUES ROUGE LFG WC/RFD

Lol, let's see it make a powerpoint presentation that doesn't have a different word for the same concept every other slide.

What's an SDF?

At least we know the title wasn't AI-generated?

Saunas have hourglasses (usually a multiple of 5 mins)?

Goddamnit it was going to tell me how to scale down ingredients for a pie recipe based on relative diameters of the baking tray.

Having used Claude a lot for the past four months, I get exhausted from its style. Every sentence has been buffed and polished and enhanced and it never just plainly says a thing. It's as if you have to eat every meal with every possible flavor enhancer in existence. At one point I will totally lose it if it mentions "smoke test" one more time.

It is also totally not what I want for docstrings in code or Powerpoint drafts, where consistency in language is critical.

Claude Code's creative use of language in an engineering context is often quite infuriating. I want language to be as simple as possible, it should be accessible and require as little context as possible. Below are a few examples that Code wrote that I encountered in my own work (related to signal processing):

"excursion" (means: a spike/jump — a value that rises or deviates from baseline, just say spike or outlier)

"legitimate majority-normal baseline" (means: a real majority of normal pixels)

"matched pool of pure-noise ('normal') pixels" (means: the same number of normal pixels, don't bring pools into this)

"ablation" (means: comparing before vs. after — turning a thing on/off to see what changes)

I actually used Claude Code to try and find examples like these but not entirely unexpectedly it had a very hard time detecting these, even though I encounter them like every other sentence. I can imagine this style is great when writing prose, not so much when writing documentation.

Similarly, I tried using Claude Design to make some slides, and the individual slides were fine, but just about every other slide it used different words to denote the same concept, which I would say is the fastest way to lose your audience.

Why are you using an em-dash though?