>>PaulHo+(OP)
This appears to be some kind of AI-slop rapid response to a piece of actual research (over at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09755-9 ). I don't mind discussing that, but this piece should never have been published. Just look at Figure 2 if you don't believe me, or the publication timeline.
>>exmads+kl
Glad I wasn't the only one to suspect AI slop. The language is too self promoting and vacuous in parts. Just doesn't feel like a human wrote it to me.