Before LLMs we still got many copy-paste materials! My favorite was a CV that started "My squid-like head is a masterful problem solver and I hope that I can bring world domination to your organization." If you google the first phrase you can find dozens! They unwittingly copied a joke C'thulhu CV.

I should also point out that some of you are starting to use AI-assisted emails, and we can tell. Use your own words, own thoughts, be honest, be real, dig a little deep and ask yourselves "what really excites me about this" and please stop with the cookie cutter, AI copy-paste emails. End of PSA.

Because let's be honest, you know nothing about germ cell regeneration, and it really cannot be speaking to you. What speaks to you could be "regeneration" itself. Then tell me why, in your own words, you find regeneration an interesting area of study.

That is because I prefer accepting people into my lab who are genuinely interested in what we do. Even if they are very early in their career, and they may not know much, I am interested in hearing somebody's real thoughts and real aspirations, not "your germ cell regeneration research speaks to me"

Because, it makes me think, you used a template, and filled it out with word salad. And now you are copy-pasting things and sending many emails to many people. While I appreciate this feels efficient to you, from my perspective, it doesn't make you a strong candidate.

I know it is hard at your stage to have more to say than "what you do is exciting". The problem is, we professors receive so many emails with a variation of the sentences above, and unfortunately these mean nothing to us. On the contrary, they make me form a poor opinion of you. Why?

Creatives from any industry more than welcome to submit auction lots - whether it's a half hour chat about breaking into your industry, a piece of art, a poem, a curated booklist by a librarian, say! Sign up and more info here! #Creatives4Sudan #KeepEyesOnSudan www.sudancoup.com/auction

Wow beautiful!!!

Already have!

Overall, it is a great tool! Perhaps it was a bit too harsh, and I wonder if we would have worried too much and postponed submitting the paper if we had seen QED's comments. That said, it is an empowering tool! I also hope we continue to have human editors and reviewers.

It is extremely important to see what the human reviewers do not get (even though you did your best being clear). If all three human reviewers are misunderstanding something in your manuscript, you need to do better for all other humans who will read it. That feedback is always precious.

However, QED picked up on a technical gap that we hadn't considered, and wasn't noticed by the reviewers. It doesn't change the validity of our results and publication, but it gave me a helpful idea for a re-analysis that may help with future projects!

Our human reviewers also could see the use of our data broadly for the community (and possibly their own labs), and they suggested adding a detailed protocol to help people more easily apply the findings to their research.