ArcticDagger

Der er nok nogle forskere, der ikke vil røre det med en ildtang, men som jeg forstår det, så er det pga lovgivning, at forskere ikke gider/kan

Hvis et stof er ulovligt, så er der sygt meget adminstration og ekstra omkostninger forbundet. Oven i det kommer, at det formentlig kan være svært at få igennem etiske komitéer. Og oven i alt det ligger der lidt et catch-22 problem: hvis stoffet er ulovligt til medicinsk forbrug, hvorfor så undersøge det? Det må alligevel ikke bruges til medicin, så der er ikke så mange, der gider funde forskningen i det

Det vender nu om dage da lovgivning rundt omkring i verden bliver løsnet, men det tager lang tid før gode, solide forskningsresultater kan genereres.

From the article:

Squeezed in alongside their main projects, the investigation took eight years and included dozens of participants. The results, published in 2016, were revelatory [1]. Two to three months after giving birth, multiple regions of the cerebral cortex were, on average, 2% smaller than before conception. And most of them remained smaller two years later. Although shrinkage might evoke the idea of a deficit, the team showed that the degree of cortical reduction predicted the strength of a mother’s attachment to her infant, and proposed that pregnancy prepares the brain for parenthood.

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/nn.4458

Gør det. Det er praktisk talt gratis penge!

I think that hypothesis still holds as it has always assumed training data of sufficient quality. This study is more saying that the places where we've traditionally harvested training data from are beginning to be polluted by low-quality training data

From the article:

To demonstrate model collapse, the researchers took a pre-trained LLM and fine-tuned it by training it using a data set based on Wikipedia entries. They then asked the resulting model to generate its own Wikipedia-style articles. To train the next generation of the model, they started with the same pre-trained LLM, but fine-tuned it on the articles created by its predecessor. They judged the performance of each model by giving it an opening paragraph and asking it to predict the next few sentences, then comparing the output to that of the model trained on real data. The team expected to see errors crop up, says Shumaylov, but were surprised to see “things go wrong very quickly”, he says.

I samme ombæring kan det nævnes, at vitaminpiller også, for langt de fleste, er spild af penge: https://videnskab.dk/krop-sundhed/nyt-stort-studie-multivitaminer-er-ikke-kilden-til-et-laengere-liv/

What they see as "bad research" is looking at an older cohort without taking into consideration their earlier drinking habits - that is, were they previously alcoholics or did they generally have other problems with their health?

If you don't correct for these things, you might find that people who are not drinking seems less healthy than people who are. BUT, that's not because they're not drinking, it's just because of their preexisting conditions. Their peers who are drinking a little bit tend to not have these preexisting conditions (on average)

Bevares, det er en mailliste, men det skal jo køre et sted. Og 50kr om året er da lige til at overkomme, hvis man ikke selv gider kompilere en liste over de mest gængse pestdyr 😄

Assuming the numbers go from 0 to 9 (those included) and can be repeated, it must be 10 * 10 * 10 * 10 = 10000 combinations :-)

Here's an actual explanation of the 'sneaked reference':

However, we found through a chance encounter that some unscrupulous actors have added extra references, invisible in the text but present in the articles’ metadata, when they submitted the articles to scientific databases. The result? Citation counts for certain researchers or journals have skyrocketed, even though these references were not cited by the authors in their articles.

Det synes jeg umiddelbart lyder som et fint forslag

Og der er det jo, at de mener, at de indgår en kontrakt, hvilket betyder, at de ikke går under databeskyttelsesloven. Hvilket så også er dèt, der åbner for, at regeringen og vores autoriteter tilsyneladende kan gå endnu hårdere efter dem. Karma, tror jeg man siger i daglig tale

Så på den måde synes jeg ikke, at de ignorerer loven da de ikke mener den er relevant for, hvad det er de foretager sig. Om det holder i retten har jeg ingen anelse om, men jeg går ud fra at regeringen ville have afprøvet den, hvis de mente, at den ikke holdte 😄