6 ms·
You think good biologists never need to summarize work into digestible language, or fill out multiple huge, redundant grant applications with the same info, or
by brookst 2y ago
You think good biologists never need to summarize work into digestible language, or fill out multiple huge, redundant grant applications with the same info, or reformat data, or check that a writeup accurate reflects data?
I’m not a biologist (good or bad) but the scientists I know (who I think are good) often complain that most of the work is drudgery unrelated to the science they love.
- topaz0 2y agoSure, lots of drudgery, but none of your examples are things that you could trust an LLM to do correctly when correctness counts. And correctness always counts in science. Edit to add: and regardless, I'm less interested in the "LLM's aren't ever useful to science" part of the point. The point that actual LLM usage in science will mostly be for cases where they seem useful but actually introduce subtle problems is much more important. I have observed this happening with trainees.
- brookst 2y agoI have also seen trainees introduce subtle problems when they think they know more than they do.