if only peer reviewed authors had to engage in such public reveals of their intent. the subject of the paper is not my domain, but plenty of people who have more knowledge seem to suggest the whole thing has the fingerprints of AI all over it.

of course the author intended to. the image generation and its ultimate inclusion is the fraud.

ps: perceived aesthetic complexity on the part of the viewer doesn’t enable or disable criticism.

why do we need a new norm? at some (extremely generous) level, this is an illustration. however, the author captioned the image: “Overall working of the framework presented as an infographic.” that’s a fraudulent claim. from the author… & (perhaps also) the reviewer(s).

We’re looking for innovative, evidence-based ideas that help local communities, organisations, and decision-makers prepare for climate challenges.

👉🏽 Read more: adaptationfutures2025.com/ecr

📺 Watch the introduction video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSa8...

And here we go again!

Last day to make a submission on the Fast Track Amendment Bill

www.greenpeace.org/aotearoa/sto...

the centre has been held in place for too long.