The successor model extends prediction to complexes with DNA, RNA and small molecules. Shows the field moving past single-protein structures, the part often described as solved.
The study claims that AI and computational methods have largely solved the long-standing problem of predicting protein structures from amino acid sequences and can also design entirely new proteins. This is because most monomeric protein structures can now be predicted with high accuracy, enabling databases containing hundreds of millions of predicted structures, while computational methods can generate protein structures not found in nature.
The study claims that AI can perform mammography screening at least as effectively as a second radiologist in detecting breast cancer. This is because one radiologist supported by AI detected 261 cancers compared with 250 detected by two radiologists, producing a 4% higher non-inferior cancer detection rate.
The large German PRAIM implementation found higher cancer detection with AI-supported reading. Provides evidence beyond the Swedish trial.
The study claims that AMIE, an AI system designed for diagnostic dialogue, demonstrated greater diagnostic accuracy and overall performance than primary care physicians in simulated text-based consultations. This is because specialist physicians rated AMIE higher on 30 of 32 performance measures, while patient-actors rated it higher on 25 of 26 measures, including diagnostic accuracy.
The study suggests that an LLM can outperform physicians in certain diagnostic reasoning tasks when used independently, but giving the LLM to physicians did not significantly improve their diagnostic performance. This is because the LLM alone scored 16 percentage points higher than the conventional-resources physician group, whereas physicians using the LLM scored only 2 percentage points higher than those using conventional resources, a difference that was not statistically significant.
The study claims that AI-generated text detection tools are neither accurate nor reliable enough for academic use. This is because the 12 publicly available tools and two commercial systems tested often classified AI-generated text as human-written, and their performance became significantly worse when the text was modified or obfuscated.
The study claims that GPT detectors are not sufficiently reliable or fair, particularly because they can misclassify human writing as AI-generated and can be easily bypassed. This is because over half of non-native English writing samples were incorrectly classified as AI-generated, while better prompt design could help AI-generated text evade detection.
The study claims that AI-driven legal research tools still produce significant hallucinations despite using technologies such as retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). This is because Lexis+ AI, Westlaw AI-Assisted Research, and Ask Practical Law AI were found to hallucinate between 17% and 33% of the time, showing that their claims of being “hallucination-free” are overstated.
Tests on verifiable US legal questions found frequent incorrect and invented legal claims. Shows citation-like factual failures in a high-stakes domain.
The study claims that although GPT-4 is more reliable than GPT-3.5, both models can generate fabricated bibliographic citations and make errors in genuine references. This is because 55% of GPT-3.5’s citations and 18% of GPT-4’s citations were fabricated, while 43% and 24% of their respective genuine citations contained substantial errors.
On: Private or incognito browsing hides your activity from websites and your internet provider.
Google agreed to delete billions of records and update its disclosures to settle a lawsuit over data it collected from people browsing in Incognito mode.
On: Private or incognito browsing hides your activity from websites and your internet provider.
The study found that private browsing primarily protects locally stored browsing information rather than making users anonymous online. It specifically explains that private browsing does not normally prevent websites or internet service providers from tracking or seeing a user's activity. This is relevant because it directly challenges the misconception that private browsing makes online activity invisible to websites and ISPs.
On: Private or incognito browsing hides your activity from websites and your internet provider.
Mozilla states that Private Browsing does not make users anonymous and does not hide browsing from an internet provider, rather it hides browsing activity from user after session it done. Firsthand explanation of its limits.
On: Private or incognito browsing hides your activity from websites and your internet provider.
Chrome explains that Incognito does not hide activity from visited websites, employers, schools or internet providers. Directly contradicts the claim.