Wolfgang Huber

(am just confirming what the Economist reported previously: www.economist.com/science-and-...)

economist.com

EMBL's new AI unit is recruiting. We are seeking a machine learning scientist to establish their independent research group bridging innovations in machine learning/AI with modern biology. embl.wd103.myworkdayjobs.com/en-US/EMBL/j...

Group Leader – AI in Biology embl.wd103.myworkdayjobs.com

This. We'll need a notion of 'trivial papers', mass-produced, basically correct, would have been legit science even a few years ago, but now not worth credit. And, more importantly, a notion of what a non-trivial research output will be. See also www.thetransmitter.org/artific…

Mass-produced science is coming. What happens to scientists? thetransmitter.org

One of the good things about the AI co-scientist brouhaha is that it makes us discuss what science *is*, and how to measure its value, impact, quality. — Questions that have been there all along, but many preferred to gloss over.

I've been trying to respond with a personal email to every request for a PhD or Master thesis placement in my group. But with the flood of AI generated applications that's now coming in every day, this has become impossible.

Been reading biomedical study proposals. It is remarkable how much old-fashioned concepts such as study design, sample size, biostats, "is there a plausible path from the data we'll obtain to the question we state?", have given way to "we'll collect multiomics and AI will figure something out"

Really angry that now I cannot use 'epistemic' in my articles anymore, to not sound like an LLM. And that after already loosing the bullet points and em-dashes.

Am at an AI workshop today, and it sounds like the next bottleneck in the field is natural and computer scientists needing to catch up with their training in philosophy. Plato, Locke, Hume, Kant, Nietsche etc.

"The model has zero temperature, therefore it cannot hallucinate." Anonymous