In some cases, a missing or incorrect record could determine whether a diagnostic assay seems to cover circulating diversity, or whether an outbreak is inferred to have started weeks earlier or later than it did.
大多数人认为AI在生物数据中的错误只是准确性问题，但作者指出这些错误可能导致严重的实际后果，如误判疫情起始时间或诊断覆盖范围。这一观点强调了AI在科学数据处理中错误的潜在严重性，挑战了人们对AI错误影响的轻视态度。
general-purpose reasoning model in the vein of GPT-5.5
大多数人认为专业化的AI模型在科学研究中比通用模型更有效，但作者认为OpenAI使用通用推理模型而非专门数学模型就能证明重要数学猜想，这挑战了AI研究需要高度专业化工具的主流观念，暗示通用AI代理可能很快能在科学领域取得独立贡献。
For me Ralph Baric's 2024 test testimony moved the lab leak hypothesis to pretty likely.
大多数人认为Ralph Baric的证词不足以改变COVID-19起源的科学共识，但作者认为这一证词显著增加了实验室泄漏理论的可信度，这挑战了科学界对证据标准的普遍理解。
The central question is not whether AI can imitate human conversation, but whether it can participate in the production of publishable scientific knowledge at a level comparable to a recognized human contributor.
大多数人认为AI科学贡献的衡量标准是其模仿人类对话的能力，而作者认为真正的标准应该是AI能否产生可发表的、相当于人类贡献者的科学知识。这一观点重新定义了AI科学成功的标准，挑战了当前AI评估的主流范式。
The application of LLMs in science is already underway... We believe that AI will ultimately bring a fundamental big change to scientific research across disciplines.
大多数人认为AI在科学研究中只是辅助工具，而作者认为AI将从根本上改变科学研究的结构和方式。这一观点与主流认知相悖，因为它暗示AI不仅是提高效率的工具，而是会重塑科学发现、合作和发表的本质。
Jamieson, K. H. (2021). How conspiracists exploited COVID-19 science. Nature Human Behaviour, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01217-2
Nature Portfolio on Twitter. (n.d.). Twitter. Retrieved 3 November 2021, from https://twitter.com/NaturePortfolio/status/1455668301284130820
Sturgis, P., Brunton-Smith, I., & Jackson, J. (2021). Trust in science, social consensus and vaccine confidence. Nature Human Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01115-7
Hackathon: Climate denial and COVID-19 misinformation: birds of a feather? : BehSciAsk. (n.d.). Reddit. Retrieved 6 March 2021, from https://www.reddit.com/r/BehSciAsk/comments/jjk00r/hackathon_climate_denial_and_covid19/
van der Linden, S. (2021). The Gateway Belief Model (GBM): A review and research agenda for communicating the scientific consensus on climate change. Current Opinion in Psychology, 42, 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.01.005
Debunking Handbook 2020 | Center For Climate Change Communication. (n.d.). Retrieved 16 February 2021, from https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/debunking-handbook-2020/
Schmid, P., Schwarzer, M., & Betsch, C. (n.d.). Weight-of-Evidence Strategies to Mitigate the Influence of Messages of Science Denialism in Public Discussions. Journal of Cognition, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.125
Reynolds, M. (2020, October 7). There is no ‘scientific divide’ over herd immunity. Wired UK. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/great-barrington-declaration-herd-immunity-scientific-divide
Kekecs, Z., Szaszi, B., & Aczel, B. (2020). ECO, an expert consensus procedure for developing robust scientific outputs [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/9gqru
Merchants of Doubt. (2020). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merchants_of_Doubt&oldid=950272903
Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Rosenthal, S. A., Kotcher, J., Bergquist, P., Ballew, M. T., Goldberg, M. H., Gustafson, A., & Wang, X. (2020). Climate change in the American Mind: April 2020 [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/8439q
Czarnek, G., Szwed, P., & Kossowska, M. (2020). Trust and attitudes toward vaccination: Study report. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/dpa35
Czarnek, G., Szwed, P., & Kossowska, M. (2020). Political ideology and attitudes toward vaccination: Study report. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/uwehk