gcatalfamo
Joined 13 years ago
Joined 13 years ago
It's an act of coordinated methodology in showing respect to previous peers by acknowledging that you read what they wrote when they were acknowledging even more previous peers.
Every attempt to do something new is rejected unless you take 99% of something that has been done and try to add your 1% to it.
But the thing is that you don't even want to do that, you need to either have a publishable/defensible thesis, or if you already have a PhD, pursue a tenurable track and grants which never collides to productive human progress.
So yes, AI could very well run tenure track career more efficiently and with better results. It's not AI the problem: it is the checks and performance indicators that are in place that make it very easy for AI to dominate and very exhausting for a human to follow.
A good researcher with good AI knowledge would (and should) dominate their field.
* Medicine is luckily saved from this, with some exceptions.
If AI disrupts your field, the culprit is most likely not AI.
It sounds like a trivial question to answer, but it just exposes the level of detachment that exists between who makes the purchase decisions and its users in SME context.
A bad boss doesn't undermine it, bad reports yes. It would be an otherwise ideal way of working.
But I used to reproduce a similar behaviour with music (repetitive)