Re: ChatGPT contributing to current science papers

On 8/15/2024 11:03 PM, JTEM wrote:

  RonO wrote:
 

This seems to be projection on your part.

 This was three years ago:
 https://groups.google.com/g/alt.atheism/c/t6El0TKcsjY/m/fbDfyW-8CQAJ
 You're defending a headline, pretending that you live this stuff when
it's been around for years already.
 

Who seems to be the religiousfundy in this case?

 You can't name a single reason for rejecting anything, other than the
fact that some headline never told you to believe it.
 You are a religious fundamentalist. You cherry pick your scripture &
believe it is literal truth.
  

Just lost, do you even know what you are arguing about?  You snipped out what you were projecting onto me, and now you seem to be changing the subject of your rant.  You are the one that was anti peer review, and started in with your stupid junk on the multiregional hypothesis when it isn't being kept from being published by peer review.  As sad as it may be the fundy seems to be you when you can't even deal with the evidence that exists.  If you had read the linked to paper you would know that the author was citing the relevant literature, and was doing a comparison with 4 different models one of which was the possiblility of multiregional evolution, but he noted that the data was not consistent with the multiregional hypothesis, so he was trying to modify it in a way that it would be consistent with the data.  One of the alternatives (B) turns out to be the most consistent with the current data, but he was trying to support another alternative (with the data then available) that would involve much more interbreeding between all the regions.  As crazy as it may seem you don't seem to understand that the data that existed at that time would have required much more interbreeding between the regions than was acceptable to the multiregional hypothesis as it existed at that time.  You have even gone on about how you would like more interbreeding between Africans and Neanderthal, and if more interbreeding had in fact occurred, this guys alternative would have been supported instead of being rejected by the current data.
Pretending seems to be more projection on your part, by the time that I retired in May I had already reviewed 4 papers in 2024.  I informed the journals that I was retiring, and that my email address would change.  I did not give them a new email address because I do not want to continue to review papers.  As a working scientist I felt that I was under an obligation to participate in peer review.  Some of the research that I was involved with was still being published, but most was proprietary. Since I am no longer actively participating in the scientific endeavor, I no longer think that I need to contribute to peer review.  My last review was turned in, in May.  I haven't received any subsequent invitations to review papers because my company email was ended with my retirement.
Ron Okimoto