Elizabeth Gibney
@lizziegibney.bsky.social
Senior reporter at Nature, views my own. Journalist covering physics, AI, policy. Attempting to stop lurking and start posting.
See my stories at nature.com/news
See my stories at nature.com/news
I'm also not sure how exciting it is to do slightly better NMR - millions of dollars of hardware kind of exciting?
And, as is often in these quantum advantage claims, now that researchers will try to beef up classical calculations, the claim may not last long
And, as is often in these quantum advantage claims, now that researchers will try to beef up classical calculations, the claim may not last long
October 23, 2025 at 9:06 AM
I'm also not sure how exciting it is to do slightly better NMR - millions of dollars of hardware kind of exciting?
And, as is often in these quantum advantage claims, now that researchers will try to beef up classical calculations, the claim may not last long
And, as is often in these quantum advantage claims, now that researchers will try to beef up classical calculations, the claim may not last long
What's cool? These QC measurements can tease out otherwise hard to get information & look suited to mapping onto NMR-type problems to reveal features of molecular structure. The studies are rigorous.
BUT the work is very proof of principle. "Showing promise" does not equate to "this will happen"
BUT the work is very proof of principle. "Showing promise" does not equate to "this will happen"
October 23, 2025 at 9:06 AM
What's cool? These QC measurements can tease out otherwise hard to get information & look suited to mapping onto NMR-type problems to reveal features of molecular structure. The studies are rigorous.
BUT the work is very proof of principle. "Showing promise" does not equate to "this will happen"
BUT the work is very proof of principle. "Showing promise" does not equate to "this will happen"
October 21, 2025 at 6:20 AM
It was packed with AI royalty (& a sprinkling of IRL celebs) & an excellent overview what the world is getting right (& wrong) on AI. One point shone through -- in striving for AGI we might be getting AI very wrong
You can still watch the whole event here: www.youtube.com/live/GmnBTCK...
You can still watch the whole event here: www.youtube.com/live/GmnBTCK...
Celebrating the 75th Anniversary of the Turing Test
YouTube video by The Royal Society
www.youtube.com
October 21, 2025 at 6:20 AM
It was packed with AI royalty (& a sprinkling of IRL celebs) & an excellent overview what the world is getting right (& wrong) on AI. One point shone through -- in striving for AGI we might be getting AI very wrong
You can still watch the whole event here: www.youtube.com/live/GmnBTCK...
You can still watch the whole event here: www.youtube.com/live/GmnBTCK...
Is there a reason we picked this slightly terrifying still? 🤣
October 2, 2025 at 9:18 AM
Is there a reason we picked this slightly terrifying still? 🤣
I'm sure there's valuable science in there but experts I consulted were not super convinced by the paper (why does it work better with noise? Why didn't they compare to the best available classical algo?) We won't cover it. Alas others already have&without outside comment www.ft.com/content/d9d4...
HSBC claims quantum trading breakthrough
Europe’s largest lender tested a tool developed by IBM on bond market data
www.ft.com
September 26, 2025 at 11:35 AM
I'm sure there's valuable science in there but experts I consulted were not super convinced by the paper (why does it work better with noise? Why didn't they compare to the best available classical algo?) We won't cover it. Alas others already have&without outside comment www.ft.com/content/d9d4...
And here's Nature's take on why more AI developers should follow suit and put their LLMs through the peer review wringer. The process is far from perfect, but it seems a valuable counterbalance against AI hype and good for clarity & safety www.nature.com/articles/d41...
Bring us your LLMs: why peer review is good for AI models
Deepseek’s R1 model has been peer reviewed. Others should follow the firm’s example.
www.nature.com
September 17, 2025 at 7:10 PM
And here's Nature's take on why more AI developers should follow suit and put their LLMs through the peer review wringer. The process is far from perfect, but it seems a valuable counterbalance against AI hype and good for clarity & safety www.nature.com/articles/d41...
The paper is here -- and kudos to #deepseek for going through the peer review process for such a cutting edge, general model www.nature.com/articles/s41...
The peer review exchanges with 8 external experts (linked from the paper) are well worth a read
The peer review exchanges with 8 external experts (linked from the paper) are well worth a read
DeepSeek-R1 incentivizes reasoning in LLMs through reinforcement learning - Nature
A new artificial intelligence model, DeepSeek-R1, is introduced, demonstrating that the reasoning abilities of large language models can be incentivized through pure reinforcement learning, removing t...
www.nature.com
September 17, 2025 at 7:10 PM
The paper is here -- and kudos to #deepseek for going through the peer review process for such a cutting edge, general model www.nature.com/articles/s41...
The peer review exchanges with 8 external experts (linked from the paper) are well worth a read
The peer review exchanges with 8 external experts (linked from the paper) are well worth a read
The top line is we're never going to get rid of hallucinations as it's just the way LLMs are built: they're not understanding, they're guessing based on stats. But maybe LLMs can be better fine-tuned to sound less confident, so humans aren't so taken in by them & use them more appropriately?
September 11, 2025 at 9:11 AM
The top line is we're never going to get rid of hallucinations as it's just the way LLMs are built: they're not understanding, they're guessing based on stats. But maybe LLMs can be better fine-tuned to sound less confident, so humans aren't so taken in by them & use them more appropriately?
My colleague Traci wrote a piece about what preprint servers are doing to try to tackle this. It sounds like a very gnarly problem www.nature.com/articles/d41...
AI content is tainting preprints: how moderators are fighting back
Preprint servers are seeing a rise in submissions seemingly produced by paper mills or with help from AI tools.
www.nature.com
August 21, 2025 at 9:32 AM
My colleague Traci wrote a piece about what preprint servers are doing to try to tackle this. It sounds like a very gnarly problem www.nature.com/articles/d41...