The paper did claim that all U.S. science funding agencies require a DEI component. However, the paper also claimed these supposed DEI mandates were implemented by Executive Order. Two independent peer reviewers and a decision editor agreed and published that, despite the fact that the EOs did not mandate such specific requirements.
My being correct about the paper's errors is not conditional on submitting my own critique for peer review. The validity of my points: that the paper misstates the EO mandate, misrepresents constitutional law, and contains internal contradictions on quotas, is verifiable right now, in the text of the paper itself.
Your defense is a continuous loop. You have not, at any point, explained why my claims are wrong; you have only appealed to the authority of the very authors and reviewers who failed to catch the errors.
I know all about t-invariant. What's your problem with them? I literally can't find a single objectionable sentence on their entire about page. On the contrary, they seem like a laudable organization.
Oh, I read more than their about page. I paid attention to what they write, how they write it, and how they frame the opposing views. (Marxism? come on)
So what do you find objectionable. The very first interview on their home page is actually pro-DEI. The founders grew up under Soviet rule. So, yeah, they're anti-Marxism.
Very much this. While T-invariant may include one article expressing the value of DEI, that single piece doesn't negate the platform’s overall editorial pattern. The content I found shows a clear editorial imbalance, with a ratio of four anti-DEI pieces (three interviews and one article) to one pro-DEI interview. This shows clear ideological bias and scaremongering. It doesn't help that their contributors and interviewees are exclusively white and overwhelmingly male. The content also consistently echoes the same fundamental, verifiable errors found in the Efimov paper: misrepresenting Executive Orders as direct mandates, asserting the existence of quotas, and falsely claiming that DEI prevents scientific organizations from hiring the best people, etc.
There's a reason rightists love AI so much. It validates everything anyone says to it. "That's a great question!" "You're absolutely right." "Would you like me to...?" AI is a sycophant, and rightists absolutely love sycophants.
www.nature.com
I wasn't aware "rightists" loved AI. My recent recollection is that "rightist" distrusted AI because it had a clear lefty bias (garbage in /garbage out). But I agree with you fully - don't just trust the AI output, you've got to verify it.There's a reason rightists love AI so much. It validates everything anyone says to it. "That's a great question!" "You're absolutely right." "Would you like me to...?" AI is a sycophant, and rightists absolutely love sycophants.
AI chatbots are sycophants — researchers say it’s harming science
Nature asked researchers who use artificial intelligence how its propensity for people-pleasing affects their work — and what they are doing to mitigate it.
Everything you get from ChatGPT should be fact-checked. You know - treated with... what's the word?.. Skepticism.
Damn it, man. You can just use your search bar. It's not hard to find.
I'm not the one making the case.
Truly amazing that you think ChatGPT would think I waned it to tell me that PIER Plans were due to Biden's EOs, given that I only asked it, "When and why did the Department of Energy institute PIER plans?"
