For the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, the series of actions taken by the Xi Lin Mathematical Research Institute were undoubtedly a severe blow.
It even made many of the employees here feel sad and angry.
Especially when the candidate interface for the Qiaoze Natural Science Award showed only Qiao Ze and Camille Dubois.
No, it should be said that only two people were presented.
Probably no one would believe that currently, only two people worldwide have been included in Dou Dou's selection range, and that only these two accepted Dou Dou's invitation to be listed in the publicly announced candidates.
The purpose of belittling was too obvious, one could even say there was no concealnt at all.
But then again, there isn't much to hide.
It is evident from many aspects that the Qiaoze Natural Science Award is aid at rivaling the Nobel Prize, even though the design of the award does not coincide.
This is an act of undermining the foundation.
Sweden is a small country, but undoubtedly a powerful one, one reason being it hosts the world's most successful science awards. Especially for the Royal Academy of Sciences, the benefits brought by hosting the Nobel Prize are nurous.
Enhancing reputation, increasing influence, promoting collaboration, and economic benefits...
Stockholm has spent hundreds of years educating the public about the Nobel Prize, which is deserving of humanity's respect. At least in most instances in Europe, a Nobel laureate truly enjoys many privileges.
In a sense, the Nobel Prize is the most robust foundation of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. As long as they can maintain the authority of the Nobel Prize, it is enough to uphold the Academy's prestige in the global academic community. Now soone is trying to undermine its foundation using a disruptive thod of discrediting.
Although nothing is said outright, the actions are a silent questioning of the century-old awarding process.
Not to ntion that the internal staff of the Academy is all too aware of why Mr. Andrei has reached this point.
He is sacrificing his life to uphold the authority of the award.
But now, the Xi Lin Mathematical Research Institute is unreasonably forcing its way in, intending to entirely negate the authoritative rules they have worked hard to establish over more than a hundred years.
The situation can be described as highly agitated.
Really, during this period, they have already sacrificed enough and suffered enough humiliation.
First, they were threatened by the recently appointed head of Langley, forced to make so decisions that betrayed their principles. Then, many of their own were threatened with death by another group from the sa place.
The old dean bore it all in silence for the sake of not tarnishing the century-long reputation of the Academy, even at the risk of sacrificing the reputation of the Crafoord Prize. He added another na to this year's winners list, and now the opposition is not only ungrateful but even wants to replace them...
Who the hell can tolerate this?
The only consolation for everyone is that the majority of esteed academics do not have high hopes for entrusting human awards to artificial intelligence, especially since the Qiaoze Natural Science Award's review rules are not deeply rooted in their hearts.
Thus, a series of fiery manifestos erged.
Especially when the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences suddenly updated an article on their official website on the night according to Huaxia ti, titled "Our science, our voice!"
With the help of interested parties, this article imdiately began to trend online.
"We must admit that in this era driven by data and algorithms, the wave of artificial intelligence is hitting every corner of our social lives, even trying to penetrate into one of our most respected and cherished areas—scientific exploration evaluations and acknowledgnts.
We noticed that in the East, an award was established in the na of science, hoping that artificial intelligence could replace our long-established and highly esteed Nobel Prize review model. However, in the face of this unprecedented proposal, we must stand up and clarify our stance: so things cannot be replaced by machines..."
The article was sharp and full of academic style, filled with academic thought and debate, truly arguntative with claims and evidence, attacking the absurdity of artificial intelligence leading the evaluation of significant science awards at every juncture.
For example, artificial intelligence lacks human intuition and subjective judgent.
"Although artificial intelligence can make judgnts based on data and algorithms, it lacks human intuition, experience, and subjective judgnt capabilities, which are indispensable in the evaluation of scientific discoveries. Human reviewers can understand the complexity, creativity, and potential contribution to the human knowledge system behind research, sothing AI cannot grasp!"
For example, artificial intelligence is foolish and could not possibly evaluate interdisciplinary and frontier research.
"Artificial intelligence may perform well in highly specialized and strictly defined tasks, but it is unreliable in evaluating interdisciplinary and cutting-edge scientific research. These fields often require unconventional thinking and unique insights, far beyond AI's current processing and evaluation capabilities."
And for example, artificial intelligence can also have bias issues.
"We believe that artificial intelligence is designed to be objective and unbiased. However, AI systems make decisions based on the datasets they are trained on, which can lead to problems of inherent bias. If there are biases of gender, race, region, or academic school in the training datasets, AI decisions will reflect these biases."
...
The article extensively wrote nearly ten thousand words, listing ten reasons why artificial intelligence cannot replace human reviewers, and even ended with an emotionally charged uplift.
Reviews
All reviews (0)