I would like to share something else with you. My essay is in part about how AI will complement and improve the capabilities of peer review. And so I have generated a summary and review of your essay using Chat GPT 4, to demonstrate its ability. While keeping in mind it is early days for AI yet, but how it is already able to demonstrate an amazing set of abilities. Enjoy

Chat GPT 4
The essay begins by telling the story of Ignaz Semmelweis and how his belief in hand hygiene as a means to prevent childbed fever was initially ignored and even ridiculed by his contemporaries in the medical community. The essay explains that the scientific community's eventual acceptance of the "germ theory of disease" brought about by researchers such as Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch, revolutionized medicine and saved countless lives. The author then reflects on the role of science in society, pointing out that while the scientific method has contributed significantly to human progress, science itself remains largely misunderstood and its contributions under-appreciated. The author suggests that science is not just a tool to solve problems but also fulfills a deeply human need for understanding.

The essay presents a compelling narrative about the challenges that Ignaz Semmelweis faced in trying to persuade his peers to adopt his hand hygiene recommendations, highlighting the importance of scientific evidence to substantiate scientific claims. The author's reflections on the broader role of science in society are thought-provoking and challenge readers to think more deeply about the purpose of science. Overall, the essay is well-written, engaging, and informative, providing a valuable lesson on the history and importance of the germ theory of disease.

This science essay discusses the challenges of science exposition in pop culture and argues that a focus on sensationalism and the newest and most awe-inspiring scientific discoveries in pop-science media has resulted in a lack of thorough dissemination of mistake-minimizing technology. The author proposes that the goal should be to provide everyone, regardless of personal interests, with a basic but broad "scientific survival kit" made of simple but powerful intuitions and evidence-based wisdom helpful in everyday life. The author suggests that such intuitions would introduce some vital nuance in the way we experience our lives and avoid expecting simple solutions to complex problems. The essay argues that science communication researchers and practitioners are making some progress in evidence-based communication, but there is still a need for progress in turning basic science into something that can be handled by literally everyone. The essay's argument is clear and well-supported, and the author provides compelling examples of rudimentary insights that serve as anchors that keep us from slipping towards some easy mistakes. Overall, the essay is of high quality and offers an interesting perspective on the challenges and opportunities of science communication.

Chat GPT 4

Checking in after a couple of days I find several great new comments in the thread. Nice surprise! I'll try to address your points briefly.

One point raised by both Thistle Lion and Beige Bandicoot is the seeming enormity of the transformation needed to achieve what I propose (democratizing scientific understanding). I agree that it's a rather big thing to wish for, and something that cannot take less than at least a generation. However, I feel that in the essay I may have not done a great job explaining how I think this transformation could come about.

I mentioned in the essay that realigning incentives of educators and communicators would be helpful, and that scientists would need to refocus how they spend their time. But I don't believe these changes would be the first step, nor that they can happen in a (mostly) top-down manner. Instead, the ambition of the essay is to bring attention to this seemingly underappreciated opportunity, and in doing so spur more people, scientists or not, to take up the challenge. Just like graduate students today become enthralled with cutting-edge research problems, I hope that at least a fraction of them can be enticed by cutting-edge exposition problems. And similarly for the pop science community. I see it more as a grassroots transformation, and I think (hope) one that can fuel itself once it's started. I am trying to contribute in this myself, but saying anything more than that might give away my identity too early 🙂

As for Persimmon Swan's argument about AI helping this cause, I am very attracted to this prospect, but I prefer to take it with a mild skepticism. I'm sure AI will help greatly in all the areas mentioned in your essay, so I believe that we agree on the general point. Still, my own experience with GPT 3/4 (and thanks for generating the summary!) is that they are very good at synthesizing, but not at all at understanding—not to mention making others understand. The "open exposition problems" require something much deeper than language skills. I've been surprised by AI advances many times in the past year, so it may or may not just be a matter of time.

    21 days later

    Marco Giancotti Your essay is the only one whose success I control. I'm surprised at the lack of attention.
    Everyone knows: The system is not capable of reforming itself. The withering away of the old gives way to the new - evolution and involution. Currently, acceleration is created by changing external conditions. External conditions change, those who pay. In all processes, everything depends on people. The essay proposes to influence science not only with money, but also by expanding the popularization of knowledge (information that is understandable). Popularization will require explanations of purpose and meaning, destroying the "fog" of the need for research, for research (Example. Why find thousands of exoplanets now. Without engineers, science will not reach exoplanets. Without verification, information becomes verbiage, and verbiage, information). If the providers of money demand conditions for popularization, it will be easier to see the naked king.
    Why did I write this? Knowledge creates a worldview - understanding. Understanding is harder to destroy than information. As a result, past knowledge negates information that can change the worldview.
    I have come across this fact. As a mistake, in my essay, I was presented with the classical definition of temperature. Knowledge of the classics allows one to ignore the fact of changes in knowledge about the nature of radiation, electrons and energy. Popularization will make it possible to overcome the excess of fundamentalism in science.

        Aleksandr Maltsev

        Dear Purple Yak,

        thanks for that inspiring comment, I totally agree that popularisation of science could greatly help to gain a deeper understanding. As Feynman once said, if you can't explain something in simple terms, you don't understand it. But it takes quite a broad overview and expertise and a separation between what's actually necessary and what is only sufficient to understand a certain phenomenon. Thus, I think, the approach of hierarchical knowledge gain that I sketch in my essay could be very useful to reach that goal and find better explanations everybody can understand, or at least, partition a complex phenomenon into its parts to identify those fundamentals that can become general knowledge and the more complex details that are rather for experts in the field. (should have mentioned that as well, but it took this discussion to bring me to that insight! 🙂 )

        Bests,
        Beige Bandicoot.

          Everything depends on people's perception. Delusions of grandeur (even in modest amounts) and no one has checked the effects of hygiene on mortality. Megalomania arises from fundamentalism. Fundamentalism in religion and science is dual. Duality can be used with flexibility. Flexibility comes when the going gets tough. Difficulties of understanding are weakened by the creation of images - physical meaning. Further on the text of your essay.

          Marco Giancotti

          Der Linen Blackbird,

          ...I am just slowly catching up on all the discussions here, but wanted to drop you a brief comment to your last reply that I definitely agree that we all should spend much more time on thinking how to explain the things we found than just looking at it from a single angle, which is mostly the one that our 5 next colleagues can follow. I myself am also quite active in outreach and this is exactly my motivation to do it: these people out there ask totally different questions than my peers and it is often the most "naive" questions that are so hard to answer. Besides this, we usually have one way of explaining a finding but trying to cast it into different words or changing the viewing angle yield a deeper understanding than just giving the same expert-talk over and again. Yet, if we want to foster this culture among the next generation of scientists, we need more people who are willing to change their viewing angle, reach out to establish interdisciplinary collaborations, and are given the time and the opportunities to be more creative and innovative. Hence, institutions should provide less hamster wheels of admin and all other kinds of tasks but promote creative and innovative thinking by giving people more freedom and time to explore. (In some cases, I think, it would already suffice to reduce the work load of duties to free people's minds)

          Best wishes,
          Beige Bandicoot.

              i've read this a few weeks with neutral attitude, now i've looked in for words like pollution, ecology, environment , sound noise, should this words be omnipresent in every scientific presentation ?i don't know , maybe, or this are already well known and by default already known knowledge among the readers

                Aleksandr Maltsev

                Hi PurpleYak, thank you for the wise comments. Understanding is indeed a powerful force to change a human system, and that's what I hoped to convey. I'm glad you agree.

                I would go even further to say that we need to spread more than understanding. We need to find ways to expand people's ability to understand on their own. I think that this is done not so much with information, but with mental framings, or lenses to see the world.

                (By the way, I'm curious to know what you meant with your first sentence: "Your essay is the only one whose success I control". It sounds a bit mysterious to me 🙂 )

                    Jenny Wagner

                    Dear Beige Bandicoot, your point is well taken and I agree completely:

                    if we want to foster this culture among the next generation of scientists, we need more people who are willing to change their viewing angle, reach out to establish interdisciplinary collaborations, and are given the time and the opportunities to be more creative and innovative.

                    No systemic change can happen with a single intervention from a single angle. In my essay I proposed one way, which I find easier to act on from my own position, but your point about top-down changes in university management and in the role of scientists is just as important (if perhaps harder).

                    Perhaps the most likely path to success is to do these things (and more) in parallel, a bit at a time, so that they can synergize and gradually snowball into something bigger.

                        cristi marcovici

                        Hi AmaranthLion, thank you for reading the essay. I don't think you'll find those environmentalism-related keywords in that specific text. Not because they aren't important—they are absolutely critical topics that must be discussed regularly and acted upon. The keywords aren't included because I believe there are many ways for science to be better. Some of these directly reference environmental concerns, while others tackle other problems. Even in the latter case, I'm confident that a better science will, even indirectly, make for a more sustainable society.

                        In the specific case of my essay, I think that if we succeed in spreading the key insights of science to very many people, then those people will naturally care about the environment more. Climate change is a very counterintuitive idea, and even scientifically-minded people struggle to understand it fully. If, as I hope, we learn to clarify complexity and chaos theory (among other things) to the masses, then climate change will become a more obvious threat, and something that people viscerally want to fight.

                          7 days later
                          a month later

                          Congratulations on your 3rd prize here! Great job and well deserved!!

                          Thank you for the kind words, and thank you to all those who read and rated or commented on my essay. The conversation that happened on this page has itself made it well-worth writing!

                          Glad for your success. First prize, for recollection of ignoring women in science. There are many similar essays and all essays describe the influence of the human factor. Your essay: how to avoid ignoring significant ideas. This essay is one. Conclusion: Readers did not see the forest for the trees.
                          About Me. To my surprise, looking through the list, I wanted to find my last name. This is surprising, because I came to the competition to create interest, to check my conclusions (with mathematics it is 31 pages). The result is zero. The situation is similar to the beginning of your essay: instead of checking, ignoring.

                          Write a Reply...