11–20 of 207 posts
The AI- generated diagram is plausible but horribly wrong the more you look at it. Thank goodness the original paper didn’t use that, it’s just this awful blog post that makes the research look like slop.
100 years of trying everything to kill bacteria, and we find they can be jolly useful
Wow, this is humorous .. whats next, the eye of the newt cures wistfulness? I sure hope so. Seriously though, we are living in an era where the more the science broadens its horizons, the more it just looks like plain ol' witchcraft. I'm hoping there'll be some uses for figs we haven't thought of, next ..
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/06ab/f83d30ec00bb902bb1aa37...
The AI- generated diagram is plausible but horribly wrong the more you look at it. Thank goodness the original paper didn’t use that, it’s just this awful blog post that makes the research look like slop.
AGI is clearly right around the corner. It might not be able to make an accurate diagram of a cancer research study but it’s gonna cure cancer in no time…
Edit: Ignore me, I'm sleepy and can't read, lol
Also who thinks -- "hmm we've found a new random bacteria --- let's give a bunch of tumors to mice and then IV inject this random thing into them!"?
There must have been something about the microbe that gave them a hint. Maybe it's in the cited original article and was left out of the blog post.