blakestacey

I should add that I have a book published with Springer. So, yeah, my work is being directly devalued here. Fun fun fun.

AI slop in Springer books:

Our library has access to a book published by Springer, Advanced Nanovaccines for Cancer Immunotherapy: Harnessing Nanotechnology for Anti-Cancer Immunity.  Credited to Nanasaheb Thorat, it sells for $160 in hardcover: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-86185-7

From page 25: "It is important to note that as an AI language model, I can provide a general perspective, but you should consult with medical professionals for personalized advice..."

None of this book can be considered trustworthy.

https://mastodon.social/@JMarkOckerbloom/114217609254949527

Originally noted here: https://hci.social/@peterpur/114216631051719911

Does this need to be marked NSFW? I think the joke about tagging the more serious posts that way ran its course a while ago, and we haven't been sticking to it.

And a new language feature, generating a list by lack-of-comprehension

We are only here for debate as long as it amuses us.

hint hint

OK, you don't have the authority to shut things down on awful.systems. But I do! Please enjoy your free trip to the egress.

Sloppenheimer

For an exposition of Bayesian probability by people who actually know math, there's Ten Great Ideas About Chance by Persi Diaconis and Brian Skyrms (Princeton University Press, 2018). And for an interesting slice of the history of the subject, there's Cheryl Misak's Frank Ramsey: A Sheer Excess of Powers (Oxford University Press, 2020).

For quantum physics, one recent offering is Barton Zwiebach's Mastering Quantum Mechanics: Essentials, Theory, and Applications (MIT Press, 2022). I like the writing style and the structure of it, particularly how it revisits the same topics at escalating levels of sophistication. (I'd skip the Elitzur-Vaidman "bomb tester" thought experiment for reasons.)

The description of "The questions ChatGPT shouldn't answer" doesn't seem to go with the text. Did you mean to link something else?

A Bluesky post by Jamelle Bouie prompted me to reflect on how I resent that my knowledge of toxic nerd deep lore is now socially relevant.

A lesswrong declares,

social scientists are typically just stupider than physical scientists (economists excepted).

As a physicist, I would prefer not receiving praise of this sort.

The post to which that is a comment also says a lot of silly things, but the comment is particularly great.