potentially dumb question: if you trained GPT-4 on all published scientific papers, would it be able to identify which outcomes or findings were repeated across the corpus? yes, right?

/ted | exploring the onchain frontier | surfing @ venice, ca | eating @ gjusta / gjelina

Based on consensus in DeSci currently, GPT3 (at least, unsure if this is validated on GPT4), is able to effectively pull out findings and could in theory aggregate them but cannot effectively discern between good experimental design which could result in lots of inaccurate data being included in this compilation.

DeSci • ethChicago.xyz • Future of Work (talentDAO) • Science of Human Connection • KB3

That sounds awesome! Someone recently inputted their research article asking for a lit review & said that it came back with a lot of the same questions the peer reviews had.

If you’re looking for collaborators I know a few awesome AI folks in DeSci or publication platforms that value the code base if you want intros

ah, thank you! would love to try this with GPT-4 and see if making some sort of guiding parameters for methodology could help.

it don’t think it will ever replace literature reviews, but could make the first 60% effort more efficient.