Same. And for some reason, this year they only gave us 2 weeks instead of a full month.

I'm a huge sucker for covers, so caveat emptor. Scanning the list of great covers, here are some that I think are better than originals:

Echo & the Bunnymen "People are Strange"
Sonic Youth "Superstar"
RHCPs "Higher Ground"
Nirvana "Oh, Me" (arguably still Meat Puppets)

While not necessarily better, I really like Patty Smith's take on When Doves Cry.

One of the first movies I remember seeing in a theater. The F1s are older than I was at the time, so gotta introduce them to this.

Congrats! And also very glad that it was preprinted :)

While not a gambler at all, I can at least understand betting on game outcomes and thinking one knows better than the listed odds. I can't at all understand betting on single pitch outcomes, and that seems ripe for corruption like this. But I also don't get the appeal of slot machines.

The truly noble are those who work to lift all who are deserving, regardless of whether it benefits themselves.

Right on. I would like to add that sometimes lifting up the few is not always just being inconsistently noble. There are mentors out there who view their mentees through a narcissistic lens as extensions of themselves, and lifting up those few is just lifting themselves.

This kind of inconsistency is often used to lift up a few women without helping all, maintaining misogyny. How many other women, and non-white people, could have had a similar effect given the chance or opportunity? We will never know.

Even if there was preferential funding, chasing the new funding hotness instead of just focusing on good science is always a mistake. Funding trends shift like the wind. Science answering interesting questions is timeless.

To talk out of both sides of my mouth, IME AI enables heightened productivity for the already productive, and heightened laziness for the inherently lazy. When it comes to AI-augmented review, I want humans to still be the guardians of nuance and decision-making.

As someone who leans AI stan relative to many on here, but is skeptical of how AI review tools like qed will be used, I would still encourage everyone to plug their papers into it.

And as someone who does regularly use AI, I appreciate qed and other AI tools for brainstorming and thinking through possible issues with papers. The cat is certainly out of the bag, but I do worry that reviewers will use these tools as a substitute and not a supplement for thinking.

I would hope that my concerns aren't reflexive. I certainly played with qed with several published and unpublished papers from my lab before commenting. I disagree with some of the identified gaps, and worry that uncritical reviewers will use that for ever-increasing asks.

I should say that I have been playing around with it for preprints and published papers from the lab. I do reflect on the advice, but disagree with it quite a bit. And at least for our genomic work, it seems to like proposing expensive experiments. I do appreciate you working to improve this space.

I appreciate the motivation, and that the tools suggests revise vs more work. My skepticism is that there is nothing stopping reviewers from plugging a paper into the tool and suggesting the more work option. I have played with qed for several papers, and I am still skeptical of how it will be used.

Trained on human reviews 🤔