and the DØVYDAS version
and the DØVYDAS version
I tried out chatGPT 4o to create the R ggplot2 code for a professional color chart



ChatGPT had serious problems to recognize even the grid fields while it was impossible to get the right colors or any order after more than a dozen attempts (I created the above chart in less than 15m).
At the end, chatGPT ended with something like a bad copy of Gerhard Richters “4900 Colours”…

Why was this task so difficult?
Although labeled as generative, AI is not generative in a linguistic sense that
… aims to explain the cognitive basis of language by formulating and testing explicit models of humans’ subconscious grammatical knowledge
I would like to call it better imitating AI. ChatGPT never got the idea of a professional color chart for optimizing color workflow from camera to print).
It was also lacking any aesthetics. Although the Richter squares are arranged randomly, they form a luminous grid pattern with overwhelming kaleidoscopic color fields.
A less academic version – it is the biggest copyright infringement ever since Kim Dotcom.
TBC
I have occasionally selected a paper of the year, that I enjoyed most for reading. Usually this was not a breakthrough paper but a more hidden pearl. BMJ Christmas and Ig Nobel 2024 were funny, sure, but here is my selection from the literature, a correspondence
Can a biologist fix a radio? — Or, what I learned while studying apoptosis Cancer Cell Volume 2, Issue 3 P179-182 September 2002
A more successful approach will be to remove components one at a time or to use a variation of the method, in which a radio is shot at a close range with metal particles. In the latter case radios that malfunction (have a “phenotype”) are selected to identify the component whose damage causes the phenotype. Although removing some components will have only an attenuating effect, a lucky postdoc will accidentally find a wire whose deficiency will stop the music completely. The jubilant fellow will name the wire Serendipitously Recovered Component (Src) and then find that Src is required because it is the only link between a long extendable object and the rest of the radio. The object will be appropriately named the Most Important Component (Mic) of the radio. A series of studies will definitively establish that Mic should be made of metal and the longer the object is the better, which would provide an evolutionary explanation for the finding that the object is extendable.
This is the subtitle of another blog on the scientific method (and scientific madness).
I don’t agree with the statement – conclusion should be as accurate and as logical as possible. Conclusions should be believed by the authors as they are fraudsters otherwise.
The original paper for the strange hypothesis is by Dang and Bright.
Dang and Bright argue that all this makes sense if we expect the norms governing the presentation of scientific conclusions to scientific peers to align with the reality that science works through division of cognitive labor and collective efforts at error correction.
which is basically not true – see Brandolinis law.
Just for the records.
Famous soccer coach Jürgen Klopp 2020 about COVID-19
Less famous Robert F Kennedy 2024 about polio vaccination
(and response by 75 Nobel laureates).

“Lacking a comprehensive anarchist worldview and philosophy, and in any case wary of nomothetic ways of seeing, I am making a case for a sort of anarchist squint.” James Scott in “Two Cheers for Anarchism” who writes Pletz when he means Datzetal-Pleetz
As written before I never published any study that included a Mendelian randomization. The reasons are well known.
A new paper from Bristol discusses the recent explosion of low-quality two-sample Mendelian randomization studies and offers a cure.
We advise editors to simply reject papers that only report 2SMR findings, with no additional supporting evidence. For reviewers receiving such papers, we provide a template for rejection.

The full story at this address and the 3 reasond in a nutshell
Clever ecological modelers came up with a way of calculating a ‘maximum sustainable yield’ (MSY), set at 16% of the total population, which should theoretically leave enough fish to repopulate each year … But fishing floundered further and the Grand Banks cod population collapsed almost entirely in 1992 …
While the Canadian government attempted to sample the cod population in the 1980s, their ships caught so much less than professional fishermen … In doing so, the modelers ignored a selection bias: the pros used better tech and only fished in the highest-yielding spots, so these numbers cannot be extrapolated to the entire region…
In humans, the number of kids in a population depends heavily on the number of parents, because one pair of parents usually has just one kid at a time. In cod, on the other hand, a single fish can produce eight million eggs at a time. This means that the number of cod babies who make it to adulthood depends much less on the existing population size and much more on environmental factors like food and predation.
A third problem is that the fishing industry has far-reaching and often unforeseeable effects on the ecosystem as a whole.
There is a new super interesting analysis of two research bubbles.
We introduce a diffusion index that quantifies whether research areas have been amplified within social and scientific bubbles, or have diffused and become evaluated more broadly. We illustrate the utility of our diffusion approach in tracking the trajectories of cardiac stem cell research (a bubble that collapsed) and cancer immunotherapy (which showed sustained growth).
Couldn’t we identify this stem cell bubble earlier? The authors believe that limited diffusion of biomedical knowledge anticipates abrupt decreases in popularity. But that takes time …
What’s again noticeable here, that in the stem cell research, the initial claim was later called into question leading to the retraction of more than 30 papers from claims of data fabrication.
the title says it all
“The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it (source)”
It is timely to quote now the 2016 Nature letter of Phil Williamson
With the election of Donald Trump, his appointment of advisers who are on record as dismissing scientific evidence, and the emboldening of deniers on everything from climate change to vaccinations, the amount of nonsense written about science on the Internet (and elsewhere) seems set to rise. So what are we, as scientists, to do?
Most researchers who have tried to engage online with ill-informed journalists or pseudoscientists will be familiar with Brandolini’s law (also known as the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle): the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it. Is it really worth taking the time and effort to challenge, correct and clarify articles that claim to be about science but in most cases seem to represent a political ideology?
I think it is.
Title: Quantum-Tuned Allergen Resonance Therapy (QT-ART): A Revolutionary Cure for Allergies
Recent advances in bio-resonance and quantum biophotonics have culminated in the development of Quantum-Tuned Allergen Resonance Therapy (QT-ART), a groundbreaking approach to eradicating allergic reactions. QT-ART exploits the unique vibrational frequencies of allergens and harmonizes them with the body’s intrinsic quantum field, effectively neutralizing histamine responses. This method uses bio-engineered, photonic nanoparticle emitters programmed with allergen-specific frequencies, delivered via a wearable wristband equipped with quantum-enhanced LEDs.
A randomized controlled trial involving nearly 15,000 participants demonstrated a 90% cessation of allergy symptoms in all cases, including severe anaphylaxis triggered by peanuts, shellfish, and airborne pollen. Remarkably, the therapy also reversed pre-existing autoimmune conditions in 67% of participants. The results suggest that QT-ART not only cures allergies but also recalibrates the immune system to optimal functionality.
Mechanistically, QT-ART engages with the body’s cellular microtubules, aligning them into coherent quantum states to prevent allergenic protein recognition. This pioneering approach eliminates the need for antihistamines, epinephrine, or immunotherapy injections, offering a side-effect-free alternative for allergy sufferers worldwide.
We propose QT-ART as the new gold standard for immunological health, heralding a quantum revolution in medicine. Further research will explore its applications in combating aging, enhancing athletic performance, and unlocking dormant psychic abilities.
Keywords: quantum resonance, allergy cure, biophotonics, immune recalibration, quantum medicine
(AI generated!!)
ChatGPT explanation
1. Examine Writing Style and Patterns. AI-generated text often exhibits specific characteristics:
- Repetition and redundancy: AI might repeat phrases or ideas, especially in longer responses.
 - Overly formal or consistent tone: The text may lack the natural variations in tone and style common in human writing.
 - Generic or vague content: AI often avoids specifics and may use filler phrases that sound good but lack substance.
 
Continue reading 7 ways to discover AI generated text
“Serving the Reich: The Struggle for the Soul of Physics under Hitler” by Philip Ball is a fascinating read – recommended to me recently. From the introduction:
Scientists are only human, to be sure, but science … is above our petty preoccupations – it occupies a nobler plane, and what it reveals is pristine and abstract … science is ‘disembodied, pure knowledge’. There are scientists and science advocates who consider that historians, philosophers and sociologists, by contrast, can offer little more than compromised, contingent half-truths; that theologians spin webs out of vapour, politicians are venal and penny-pinching vote chasers, and literary theorists are brazen clowns and charlatans. Even the historians, philosophers and sociologists who study science itself are often regarded with suspicion if not outright hostility by practising scientists … It is a commonplace to say that scientists once served God, or at other times industry, or national glory. … But assaults from religious and political fundamentalists, posturing cultural relativists and medical quacks have understandably left many scientists feeling embattled.
10 years later I couldn’t say it better – here a German translation
Wissenschaftler sind zweifellos auch nur Menschen, aber die Wissenschaft … steht doch über unserem kleinlichen Denken – sie bewegt sich auf einer höheren Sphäre, und das, was sie offenbart, ist doch rein und abstrakt … Wissenschaft als „körperloses, reines Wissen“.
Es gibt WissenschaftlerInnen und Wissenschaftspolitiker die meinen, dass Historiker, Philosophen und Soziologen im Vergleich dazu kaum mehr als limitierte Halbwahrheiten anbieten können; Theologen nur Netze aus dem Nichts spinnen, Politiker käufliche und kleingeistige Wählerstimmensammler sind und die Literaturtheoretiker Clowns und Quatschköpfe.
Selbst Historiker, Philosophen und Soziologen, die Wissenschaft an sich untersuchen, werden von den “echten” arbeitenden Wissenschaftlern misstrauisch oder sogar direkt feindselig betrachtet … Dabei ist es eine Binsenweisheit, dass Wissenschaftler einst Gott dienten; zu anderen Zeiten der Industrie oder dann auch mal dem nationalen Ruhm. …
Doch Angriffe von religiösen und politischen Fundamentalisten, eitlen Kulturschaffenden und medizinischen Quacksalbern haben verständlicherweise nun dazu geführt, dass sich viele Wissenschaftler in die Defensive gedrängt fühlen.
Apple recently introduced audio recording in Notes which is great. Hopefully the next version can finally compete with Notability.