this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2023
73 points (98.7% liked)
science
14696 readers
162 users here now
just science related topics. please contribute
note: clickbait sources/headlines aren't liked generally. I've posted crap sources and later deleted or edit to improve after complaints. whoops, sry
Rule 1) Be kind.
lemmy.world rules: https://mastodon.world/about
I don't screen everything, lrn2scroll
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Without reading the article, is this just a new discovery that was always there? Or is this a new sound that just appeared on the radar?
I read a similar article yesterday stating this was a conclusion recently arrived at after of decades of collecting and reviewing data on the distance between our telescopes and sets of “calibration” quasars and calculating differences in the actual and expected distances over time.
Always there. Here's an ELI5 from Bing:
Much appreciated. Thank you.
I'm Glad it's not some new sound.
I’m really not a fan of using AI to summarize scientific concepts. I’ve messed around with having chatGPT explain concepts in my area of research. Sometimes it’s spot on, scarily so. Other times it’s hilariously wrong. The problem is it sounds equally confident in both cases, so it’s impossible to tell if the AI is hallucinating if you aren’t familiar with the subject matter.
The discovery is new, why not just read the article instead of relying on some AI bullshit?
I would recommend just reading the article. Quanta magazine generally does an excellent job of explaining new research results in a way that’s accessible to the general public without using the hyperbolic, misleading, or outright wrong language that often shows up in shoddy science reporting.