While AI was clearly used to generate and structure a first draft, I say it has been extensively rewritten by the author. In my experience, AI tends to avoid the first person, instead writing from a passive observer or even using sentences without verbs. The length of the sentences is also more natural. AI had trouble with bind-words in an argument. It just states separate facts and assumes because they are stated in order you have a reasoning. I'm not seeing that here.

Of course, idioms are preserved, and not everything is rewritten.

I quite ok with this style, it isn't grating. I expect this will be a style we'll see more of in science.

> In my experience, AI tends to avoid the first person, instead writing from a passive observer or even using sentences without verbs.

Not my experience with Claude at all.

Which AIs are you talking about?

It wouldn't surprise me that even if you opt-out they still train on 'de-identified' chat data. After all, facts cannot be copyrighted and one cannot be sued for unethical behaviour.

I think Sam Altman already admitted that is a possibility.

The fact that the height of adult males with ADHD is greater than that of males without ADHD (first figure/graphs, G & H) should indicate that there is no causative link that the medication has an impact. For females, the average does not show this, but if you look carefully, the variation is bigger. The same selection bias is possible in this case.

Instead, to me it looks like there is selection bias going on. Shorter males are more likely to get MPH prescribed is an equally valid explanation.

Luckily, the conclusion makes no assertions about height either, nor does the paper make conclusions about any causative relation.

An ESTA is not only for Tourism.

That is not what the article says.

I disagree, wood pellets are more expensive than oil for energy, especially if only counting the production cost of oil w/o the tax. So even the first time an old forest is cut, when the land changes, it already displaces oil use. At greater expense even, so demand would be reduce the amount energy produced further.

Furthermore Europe can also choose to replant non-forest land or replant permanently afterwards.

Per abstract, the effect is stronger in poor regions (precisely "across five levels of social deprivation"). They did control for affluence.

Yes, and libraries pay for that access. They also don't obfuscate the origin or remove the advertising. Don't equate libraries with what OpenAI does.

Quitting implies there is a problem, the authors even state so. But is it really¹? I'm quite sure "Over 90% of college students quit college within a decade". They graduate.

Should science grow exponentially? Is there no value in a PhD graduate that isn't a researcher? Get everyone a PhD and chain them to a desk for research!

(1) Except for gender (and others not in scope) where past discrimination is still felt.

Every tenured professor is expected to have at very least one PhD student. A PhD takes on average less than 8 years and a tenure more than 20.

Though I think a more reasonable replacement rate is 10+ PhD graduates per professor. I do not think this problematic somehow, unlike what overproduction implies.