3 ms·

GPT-3? :) "The DNA molecule can be modeled as a quantum logic processor in which electron spin qubits are held coherently in each nucleotide in a logically an

GPT-3? :) "The DNA molecule can be modeled as a quantum logic processor in which electron spin qubits are held coherently in each nucleotide in a logically and thermodynamically reversible enantiomeric symmetry, and can be coherently conducted along the pi-stacking interactions of aromatic nucleotide bases, while simultaneously being spin-filtered via the helicity of the DNA molecule. Entangled electron pairs can be separated by that spin-filtering, held coherently at biological temperatures in the topologically insulated nucleotide quantum gates, and incorporated into separate DNA strands during DNA replication."

codezero 6y ago
I think scientific papers in any field could look like GPT-3 to a lot of people, given all the jargon, yet clean structure and flow. Never attribute to GPT-3 that which can be attributed to a scientist churning out papers to get funding. Then again, if this turns out to be GPT-3, I don't want to have to swallow that pill :)
- mdturnerphys 6y ago
  As an illustration, see http://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/ http://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/
elmo2you 6y ago
This certainly bends the needle on my bamboozle bullshit meter. They sure crammed a maximum amount of specialized words in there. Words that a majority of people will not understand. After reading just this excerpt, I instantly lost the nerve and patience to read the actual article. If the purpose of (written) communication is to transfers ideas, then this convoluted word salad certainly miserably failed at it. But, I get the impression that the intention here is exactly the opposite, to convey absolutely nothing while pretending to be something complex and hard to understand. 99 out of a 100 (if not more), that kind of pattern indicates a intentional scam, of which there are plenty on fringes of science communities. Not being able to follow a science paper as the result of inadequate knowledge, regarding concepts and/or jargon, is one thing. Creating bullshit sentences like these is very much another.
marcosdumay 6y ago
Wow, no kidding, that's the abstract! It doesn't talk about the experiment or the findings, it only postulates some reaction that they expect to be happening. There is certainly not enough evidence on the paper to decide on that complex model. I'm not sure there is any evidence on the paper at all, since it's noisy and hard to read - but certainly not enough for that.

codezero 6y ago

I think scientific papers in any field could look like GPT-3 to a lot of people, given all the jargon, yet clean structure and flow. Never attribute to GPT-3 that which can be attributed to a scientist churning out papers to get funding. Then again, if this turns out to be GPT-3, I don't want to have to swallow that pill :)

mdturnerphys 6y ago
As an illustration, see http://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/ http://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/

elmo2you 6y ago

This certainly bends the needle on my bamboozle bullshit meter. They sure crammed a maximum amount of specialized words in there. Words that a majority of people will not understand. After reading just this excerpt, I instantly lost the nerve and patience to read the actual article. If the purpose of (written) communication is to transfers ideas, then this convoluted word salad certainly miserably failed at it. But, I get the impression that the intention here is exactly the opposite, to convey absolutely nothing while pretending to be something complex and hard to understand. 99 out of a 100 (if not more), that kind of pattern indicates a intentional scam, of which there are plenty on fringes of science communities. Not being able to follow a science paper as the result of inadequate knowledge, regarding concepts and/or jargon, is one thing. Creating bullshit sentences like these is very much another.

marcosdumay 6y ago

Wow, no kidding, that's the abstract! It doesn't talk about the experiment or the findings, it only postulates some reaction that they expect to be happening. There is certainly not enough evidence on the paper to decide on that complex model. I'm not sure there is any evidence on the paper at all, since it's noisy and hard to read - but certainly not enough for that.