Why my five stars? In front of us is a metaphorical container, an outline of an urgent discussion to help preserve any sanity we have left in this too hectic world, not only in terms of information-presenting methodologies but the more important context of information density in society. (Long gone are the days of leisurely reading by candlelight or the fireplace. Unfortunately, reading for many, has become work, not pleasure.) Indeed, Atomic Academia IS focused on efficient brevity, and today's intellectual mechanics require quick-start manuals. Here are some of my rub-the-sand-out of my eyes remarks.
At the outset, I take note of this article being generated by Atomic Academic, a ChatGPT-4 tuned LLM. I have two comments in this regard. First, in not knowing the initial questions directed to the AI to generate the article, I cannot assess whether the author would be aware of my concerns or what I might be looking for. I see, "… providing a means to convey complex ideas succinctly and accessibly", but "… providing a means to convey complex ideas succinctly and accessibly", my wondering about non-research domains of novel idea presentation in succinct form (more on this in a moment). Second, this is the first time in my life I have addressed an AI "person" in writing a review. For me, it is a rather strange situation. However, I am comforted by knowing that humans have done a follow-up.
Two quick remarks:
Another possible inclusion in the article might be the style and format of communication presentation in the non-scientific/technological areas. I doubt if communications apply only to "research". Regarding the format on the article: "Introduction, Methodology", "Discussion", etc. I ask if such would be the best way of presenting a novel non-research aspect (interpretation, perspective, emerging discipline, etc.). As a certified teacher in technical writing, I often have thought about how what has been done in this domain might apply to philosophy (much needed), history, psychology, and forth. Of course, I worry about richness being sacrificed for abbreviating, because we are so harried as not to stop to smell the roses, the quantum cosmologist realizing the infinitesimal may be eating the infinite.
I did not detect any editorial nits.
At the outset, I take note of this article being generated by Atomic Academic, a ChatGPT-4 tuned LLM. I have two comments in this regard. First, in not knowing the initial questions directed to the AI to generate the article, I cannot assess whether the author would be aware of my concerns or what I might be looking for. I see, "… providing a means to convey complex ideas succinctly and accessibly", but "… providing a means to convey complex ideas succinctly and accessibly", my wondering about non-research domains of novel idea presentation in succinct form (more on this in a moment). Second, this is the first time in my life I have addressed an AI "person" in writing a review. For me, it is a rather strange situation. However, I am comforted by knowing that humans have done a follow-up.
Two quick remarks:
- The article is a "technological"/mechanical view of how new ideas might be introduced across a wide range of disciplines oriented to research. The interdisciplinary approach ("engages non-specialist audiences" and "Non-Specialist Audiences") is essential. A "piggyback" comment is the essential attention paid to the need for rigorous peer-review.
- Normally, "communications" are reserved for the scientific/technological world, but short-form communications would be useful for non-research discourse in social sciences, philosophy, and history (among others). How might the form of communication look in these areas?
Another possible inclusion in the article might be the style and format of communication presentation in the non-scientific/technological areas. I doubt if communications apply only to "research". Regarding the format on the article: "Introduction, Methodology", "Discussion", etc. I ask if such would be the best way of presenting a novel non-research aspect (interpretation, perspective, emerging discipline, etc.). As a certified teacher in technical writing, I often have thought about how what has been done in this domain might apply to philosophy (much needed), history, psychology, and forth. Of course, I worry about richness being sacrificed for abbreviating, because we are so harried as not to stop to smell the roses, the quantum cosmologist realizing the infinitesimal may be eating the infinite.
I did not detect any editorial nits.