Isn't it more like "You can save so much money by using a shipping container vs air freight, but your stuff will arrive in 6mo instead of tomorrow"?

I meant to ask whether you've ever tried to get an LLM to generate bullet point summaries of human-written papers and compared those summaries with your "ground truth" initial outlines. Would a poor match point to unclear (human) writing?

Out of curiosity, have you ever tried passing the final text through an LLM to see how well you can recover the original bullet points? Like an autoencoder, but where the latent is way bigger than the input.

There's no worse feeling than writing a document that captures all of your key ideas with no fluff and being advised to "just flesh it out". Time to interpolate a few paragraphs, I guess...

What a beautiful result! Congrats on this work.

field matures.

Kuhn would have been writing around the time of H&H's squid axon experiments. I can't help but think that if he were writing today, he might say that ephys has matured --- but neuro as a whole, maybe not so much. Perhaps that's your point?

I just finished reading Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions and was astonished by his argument that fully precise definitions are 1) rare, especially early on, and 2) not necessary for progress. In his view, shared intuitions are more fundamental, and these only become codified as the 1/2

So now every ChatGPT response will start like this?

"Your message addresses an important question and provides many nice insights. However, additional work is needed to make it fully convincing. Specifically, I have the following concerns:"

What a thoughtful and thought-provoking piece!

What do you think? If a 🛑 is represented in a forest and no behaviour is there to hear it, does it really make a sign?

Inspired by this thought-provoking thread from @neuralreckoning.bsky.social: bsky.app/profile/neur...

3. Slightly tangential: If we did a controlled experiment beforehand that involved randomly presenting a 🛑 while recording neural activity, we can say that the 🛑 *causes* the activity. 🧪 No need to use weasel words and say "activity correlates with 🛑".

🤓 My uninformed opinion:

1. We can say that a red octagon is represented.
2. If drivers usually stop, we can say a stop sign is represented even if this particular driver didn't stop this time.
3. (continued 👇)

Congrats! So exciting to see this wonderful work in print.

Those water drops are looking 👌, btw