Tags
Aktuelle Nachrichten
America
Aus Aller Welt
Breaking News
Canada
DE
Deutsch
Deutschsprechenden
Europa
Europe
Global News
Internationale Nachrichten aus aller Welt
Japan
Japan News
Kanada
Karte
Konflikt
Korea
Krieg in der Ukraine
Latest news
Nachrichten
News
News Japan
Russischer Überfall auf die Ukraine seit 2022
Science
South Korea
Ukraine
Ukraine War Video Report
UkraineWarVideoReport
Ukrainian Conflict
UkrainianConflict
United Kingdom
United States
United States of America
US
USA
USA Politics
Vereinigte Königreich Großbritannien und Nordirland
Vereinigtes Königreich
Welt
Welt-Nachrichten
Weltnachrichten
Wissenschaft
World
World News
2 Comments
Seed Statement:
For decades, scholars have been trying to accelerate the onerous task of compiling bodies of research into reviews. “They’re too long, they’re incredibly intensive and they’re often out of date by the time they’re written,” says Iain Marshall, who studies research synthesis at King’s College London. The explosion of interest in large language models (LLMs), the generative-AI programs that underlie tools such as ChatGPT, is prompting fresh excitement about automating the task.
Some of the newer AI-powered science search engines can already help people to produce narrative literature reviews — a written tour of studies — by finding, sorting and summarizing publications. But they can’t yet produce a high-quality review by themselves. The toughest challenge of all is the ‘gold-standard’ systematic review, which involves stringent procedures to search and assess papers, and often a meta-analysis to synthesize the results. Most researchers agree that these are a long way from being fully automated. “I’m sure we’ll eventually get there,” says Paul Glasziou, a specialist in evidence and systematic reviews at Bond University in Gold Coast, Australia. “I just can’t tell you whether that’s 10 years away or 100 years away.”
Personally, I had and still have this feeling that being able to synthesize all scientific findings related a specific field will definitely help define better research questions.
The main potential that I can see here is to 1st weed out all of those papers that are not worth the paper or bytes they are written on, or at least have substantial errors that make relevant parts of the results unusable and put the rest in question, or that are just copy and paste from other papers and don’t actually add any new information. The combined hope and fear that I would connect with this is of course to use this level of ability in general to improve the quality of the training data for future AI models (I assume that is what they are doing now already, and not just having AI generated training data?)