Frontiers

We're calling it Why AI? And we've been speaking to some of the biggest names in the business.

[melodía suave] Today, we're introducing a new series in partnership with the open science publisher Frontiers, and it's called Why.

In this series, we'll explore some of science's most pressing questions, from geoengineering to open source publishing and public trust.

It comes ahead of the Frontiers Science House in Davos, which brings scientists, policymakers, and business leaders together so open evidence-based science discussion can help inform global decisions on health, the planet, and emerging technologies.

We begin with the big question on everyone's mind right now, which is why AI? In just a few years, this has gone from the realms of science fiction to something many of us use every day.

But concerns have grown so much that artificial intelligence is now front page news, and the White House has unveiled a super intelligence force to oversee AI policy.

Find out how Spitfire can empower your company at spitfire.co.uk.

This is The Naked Scientist Podcast with me, Chris Smith.

Dr. Keith is doing what he does best, pretending that geoengineering is only a proposal and trying to convince populations of the same lie.

From FrontiersIN.org, solar geoengineering has no showstopper risks, scientists tells New York panel, scientists at David Keith in this case.

Professor David Keith of the University of Chicago said decades of research has found no showstopper risks while acknowledging that there are legitimate concerns about geoengineering.

For a quarter of a century, Key states, there have been ample incentives to find big new risks or fundamental problems with solar geoengineering.

Do join us on Tuesday, though, where we're gonna be asking why AI.

We've partnered with the team at Frontiers again ahead of their big Science House Symposium in Davos.

We'll be hearing from some of the biggest names in the business, including Dame Wendy Hall, who advises the UN on AI, Microsoft, and Christina Criddle, who covers artificial intelligence for The Financial Times.

Please do, meanwhile, leave us a review on whatever podcasting platform it is you're using to listen to the show, and also drop some comments.

Think of a bicep curl, a leg press, or a chest press.

We are pulling from a massive meta-analysis here published in the journal Frontiers, which aggregated 18 different clinical studies on DRT.

And what's the verdict?

The consensus is totally clear.

So the worse your hypertension is, the harder the exercise pulls you back toward normal.

Exactly.

The Frontiers data illustrates this perfectly.

Patients who came into the studies with stage 2 hypertension saw a massive 9.33 point drop in their systolic pressure.

So I think there's g- a little sh- pushback now as organizations think, "Hold on, these LLMs are only as good as the prompters, and if we wanna create a great experience for our people and our, and our customers, we still need a human connection." So a lot of people are now looking at and beginning to champion, particularly the people we talked to in our book, uh, AI as enabling better human connection.

So we get AI to deal with all the stuff that takes you too long and doesn't really add a lot of value and gets, gets in the way and frustrates you and, but then frees you up to be more creative, more collaborative, more empathetic, more critically th- thinking, and build better relationships 'cause one of the people we talked to, Camilla Makram, who runs a very successful global scientific publication called Frontiers, talks about is, uh, and she, and being in that science world, she's sort of right on top of it, is this whole idea that, uh, we will need people to be more like people.

We need more empathy, more creativity, more critical thinking, more curiosity.

AI doesn't do that.

It is.

And we're also pulling from an ERAI fellowship ranking of fact-checking tools, the Associated Press' internal AI strategy, and a really detailed breakdown of synthetic media from Frontiers.

That is a very comprehensive stack of material.

But what ties it all together is this realization that A.I. and information gathering is well, it's less about that old cliche of robots just writing articles.

We really have to talk about the war on synthetic media and the intense fact checking arsenal required to fight it.

First, we need to clearly define the threat.

The Frontiers Report defines synthetic media as AI-generated or manipulated audio, video, or images that depict events, statements, or individuals in ways that did not actually occur.

So we are not talking about using Photoshop to remove a blemish.

We're looking at rigorous clinical trials from the National Institutes of Health.

We've got elite coaching data from Jason Toop's frameworks, incredibly detailed genetic analysis from fitness genes, and comprehensive sports science reviews published in the Frontiers Journal.

It's a lot of ground to cover.

It is, yeah.

It certainly sounds less painful than a four-minute death march.

But when subjected to clinical scrutiny, does the 30-30 protocol actually outperform the traditional long interval?

To settle the debate, researchers published a highly controlled head-to-head trial in the Frontiers Journal.

They took highly trained runners and subjected them to both protocols on different days to measure the internal physiological response.

We did.

We are pulling cognitive psychology research on habit formation from the journal Frontiers.

We have comprehensive financial blueprints designed for affluent families from Morgan Stanley.

And we are bringing in leadership and organizational behavior insights from Tanvir Nazir, alongside some macro-level sustainable business strategies from Deloitte, and the International Network Organization for Scientific Research, or INAS.

Yeah, if I'm measuring the beans, I'm thinking about it.

Exactly.

The Frontiers researchers define a habit strictly as a highly automatic learned stimulus response association.

So it's completely below the surface.