Tap a claim on the ring to put it at the centre.
← Combining multiple AI models' outputs into one final answer tends to…
17 connected korrents · 14 moments on record from 28 Oct 2011 to 6 Aug 2026.
Everything filed under peer review
peer review
Everything filed under AI and science
AI and science
Everything filed under mathematics
mathematics
Everything filed under taste
taste
Everything filed under metascience
metascience Same subject Same subject Same subject Same subject Same subject Same subject Same subject Same subject Same subject Same subject Same subject Same subject Same subject Same subject Same subject Same subject Same subject Read this korrent: Combining multiple AI models' outputs into one final answer tends to discard most of the good ideas that only one model produced. Combining multiple AI models' outputs into one final answer tends to discard most of the good ideas that only one model produced. Last stated 3 months ago
15 Jun 2026
RK
Rohit Krishnan — holds since 2026-06-15 — tap for who they are
Same subject: Fraudulent papers pass peer review routinely, which is direct evidence that peer review does not do the job it is supposed to do. — tap to centre the map on it Fraudulent papers pass peer review routinely, which is direct evidence that peer review does not do the job it is supposed to do. Last stated 4 years ago
13 Dec 2022
AM
Adam Mastroianni — holds since 2022-12-13 — tap for who they are
Same subject: History has a reproducibility problem worse than science’s replication crisis, because hardly anyone ever goes back to the sources to check what a historian claimed they say. — tap to centre the map on it History has a reproducibility problem worse than science’s replication crisis, because hardly anyone ever goes back to the sources to check what a historian claimed they say. Last stated 3 years ago
29 Aug 2023
AH
Anton Howes — holds since 2023-08-29 — tap for who they are
Same subject: Needing a reviewer's approval before an idea counts for anything makes scientists worse at thinking, and costs the field its most unusual ideas. — tap to centre the map on it Needing a reviewer's approval before an idea counts for anything makes scientists worse at thinking, and costs the field its most unusual ideas. Last stated 4 years ago
13 Dec 2022
AM
Adam Mastroianni — holds since 2022-12-13 — tap for who they are
Same subject: Peer review is one of the things genuinely wrong with academia, not a safeguard that mostly works. — tap to centre the map on it Peer review is one of the things genuinely wrong with academia, not a safeguard that mostly works. Last stated 4 years ago
13 Dec 2022
AG
Alexey Guzey — holds since 2019-08-15 — tap for who they are
AM
Adam Mastroianni — holds since 2022-12-13 — tap for who they are
Same subject: Pre-grant peer review predicts which research will have impact substantially better than chance does. — tap to centre the map on it Pre-grant peer review predicts which research will have impact substantially better than chance does. Last stated 6 years ago
20 Jan 2021
JR
José Luis Ricón — holds since 2021-01-20 — tap for who they are
Same subject: Published effect sizes shrink as more studies are done, and that decline is what the replication crisis is made of. — tap to centre the map on it Published effect sizes shrink as more studies are done, and that decline is what the replication crisis is made of. Last stated 4 years ago
11 Oct 2022
SR
Stuart Ritchie — holds since 2022-10-11 — tap for who they are
Same subject: Scientists say they take peer review seriously, but what they actually do shows they do not think it matters. — tap to centre the map on it Scientists say they take peer review seriously, but what they actually do shows they do not think it matters. Last stated 4 years ago
13 Dec 2022
AM
Adam Mastroianni — holds since 2022-12-13 — tap for who they are
Same subject: Sixty years of peer review produced no evidence that it made science better, and the literature it produced is in a bad state. — tap to centre the map on it Sixty years of peer review produced no evidence that it made science better, and the literature it produced is in a bad state. Last stated 4 years ago
13 Dec 2022
AM
Adam Mastroianni — holds since 2022-12-13 — tap for who they are
Same subject: A compound's AI origin story is not by itself a reason to expect it to do better in the clinic. — tap to centre the map on it A compound's AI origin story is not by itself a reason to expect it to do better in the clinic. Last stated 2 years ago
13 May 2024
DL
Derek Lowe — holds since 2024-05-13 — tap for who they are
Same subject: A computational discovery platform does not make a biotech fast, because the thousand other steps of drug development are still the bottleneck. — tap to centre the map on it A computational discovery platform does not make a biotech fast, because the thousand other steps of drug development are still the bottleneck. Last stated 2 years ago
17 Sept 2024
AT
Alex Telford — holds since 2024-09-17 — tap for who they are
Same subject: A computational method can regularly predict protein structures with atomic accuracy even when no similar structure is known. — tap to centre the map on it A computational method can regularly predict protein structures with atomic accuracy even when no similar structure is known. Last stated 5 years ago
15 Jul 2021
DH
Demis Hassabis — holds since 2021-07-15 — tap for who they are
Same subject: A first draft should not be graded good or bad; it is only the material that taste then gets to act on. — tap to centre the map on it A first draft should not be graded good or bad; it is only the material that taste then gets to act on. Last stated 2 months ago
6 Aug 2026
GS
George Saunders — holds since 2026-08-06 — tap for who they are
Same subject: A gift's perceived price is part of what it does, so a drink known to be cheap fails at its job however good it tastes. — tap to centre the map on it A gift's perceived price is part of what it does, so a drink known to be cheap fails at its job however good it tastes. Last stated 9 months ago
9 Dec 2025
RS
Rory Sutherland — holds since 2025-12-09 — tap for who they are
Same subject: A lot of people can match a framework for taste; almost nobody can create one, and creating one is the rare skill. — tap to centre the map on it A lot of people can match a framework for taste; almost nobody can create one, and creating one is the rare skill. Last stated 11 months ago
16 Oct 2025
DF
Dylan Field — holds since 2025-10-16 — tap for who they are
Same subject: A proof and an explanation are different things, and a theorem can stay an unsolved expository problem long after it is proved. — tap to centre the map on it A proof and an explanation are different things, and a theorem can stay an unsolved expository problem long after it is proved. Last stated 3 months ago
30 Jun 2026
GS
Grant Sanderson — holds since 2026-06-30 — tap for who they are
Same subject: A stream of AI-written papers with any error rate at all becomes insufferable, because finding the error costs more than the paper is worth even at ninety-nine percent. — tap to centre the map on it A stream of AI-written papers with any error rate at all becomes insufferable, because finding the error costs more than the paper is worth even at ninety-nine percent. Last stated 3 months ago
30 Jun 2026
GS
Grant Sanderson — holds since 2026-06-30 — tap for who they are
Same subject: Academic credentials — grades, major, the prestige of the degree — barely matter to industry hiring. — tap to centre the map on it Academic credentials — grades, major, the prestige of the degree — barely matter to industry hiring. Last stated 15 years ago
28 Oct 2011
PM
Patrick McKenzie — holds since 2011-10-28 — tap for who they are
At the centre
Combining multiple AI models' outputs into one final answer tends to discard most of the good ideas that only one model produced.
Holds Read this korrent →
Fraudulent papers pass peer review routinely, which is direct evidence that peer review does not do the job it is supposed to do.
Holds
History has a reproducibility problem worse than science’s replication crisis, because hardly anyone ever goes back to the sources to check what a historian claimed they say.
Holds
Needing a reviewer's approval before an idea counts for anything makes scientists worse at thinking, and costs the field its most unusual ideas.
Holds
Peer review is one of the things genuinely wrong with academia, not a safeguard that mostly works.
Holds
Pre-grant peer review predicts which research will have impact substantially better than chance does.
Holds
Published effect sizes shrink as more studies are done, and that decline is what the replication crisis is made of.
Holds
Scientists say they take peer review seriously, but what they actually do shows they do not think it matters.
Holds
Sixty years of peer review produced no evidence that it made science better, and the literature it produced is in a bad state.
Holds
A compound's AI origin story is not by itself a reason to expect it to do better in the clinic.
Holds
A computational discovery platform does not make a biotech fast, because the thousand other steps of drug development are still the bottleneck.
Holds
A computational method can regularly predict protein structures with atomic accuracy even when no similar structure is known.
Holds
A first draft should not be graded good or bad; it is only the material that taste then gets to act on.
Holds
A gift's perceived price is part of what it does, so a drink known to be cheap fails at its job however good it tastes.
Holds
A lot of people can match a framework for taste; almost nobody can create one, and creating one is the rare skill.
Holds
A proof and an explanation are different things, and a theorem can stay an unsolved expository problem long after it is proved.
Holds
A stream of AI-written papers with any error rate at all becomes insufferable, because finding the error costs more than the paper is worth even at ninety-nine percent.
Holds
Academic credentials — grades, major, the prestige of the degree — barely matter to industry hiring.
Holds