Interesting. Thanks!

Oh, I did not know that. I have been doing it wrong all these years then. Could have been drinking cocktails on the beach instead of reading all these papers.

I am sorry, but what is wrong with your professor? You were doing exactly what you are supposed to do in a peer review. You should go look for things that are wrong or should be improved and only if the paper can withstand that process, it should be published. Only providing positive comments is really harmful to the scientific process and, in the end, to society.

To be honest, I think I reject more than half of the papers that I review. The rest require major or minor revision. It is not that I have a target or anything for how many I need to reject, it is just that most papers are of such low quality that I cannot do anything else. I think the number of papers I reject is quite normal in my field.

So, not all your comments need to be positive. If there is reason to be positive, you should mention it. And your comments should be constructive and respectful, but definitely not always positive.

In the case you are describing where the authors seem to only have read the titles of the papers, I would definitely reject. This is fraud. You are saying you did a literature study and you did not. So, I would be quite clear about that. I would also be a bit angry that they wasted my time. So, in my opinion, that is how a reviewer should respond in this situation, not with only positive comments.

You can try. At least with ADHD you have creativity and hyperfocus. That might help. :-)

I already had mental illness before I started!

That is a really interesting perspective. We are just parts of the ‘system’ (I am using the word system here for lack of a better one). But what if the system is not made up of separate parts, like a car? If you take out a part of the car, maybe a wheel, then it becomes different, it behaves different. The parts are thus individuals. What if the system is more like a liquid, such as the sea? If you take out a water-atom, it is practically still the same. It still behaves the same. So, the parts are not individuals.

If you take a human away, their immediate environment will be changed a lot. However, the universe, the system as a whole does not function differently from before. So, in that sense, individuality is an illusion when you look at it from a very high level perspective. This is different from a more local perspective, of course. When I lost someone in my environment, my personal universe changed completely.

I hope I make sense. I just really liked the thought you expressed. :-)

Well, I am not even sure whether humans have free will. I mean, the world might be a deterministic place, meaning that everything is cause and effect. In that case, there is no such thing as true free will.

I think in the article they probably it use different definition. But any initiative taken by the AI would still be a reaction to something. Just like is the case for humans probably/maybe.

I think the ability to deal with situations that are currently not in the training data could be improved by adding symbolic AI to the models. This might help create a more explicit understanding of how the world works. It is more similar to the way humans think consciously. However, symbolic AI has been quite negiected in favour of machine learning. It would be nice to see more attention to that part of the field again and to see what happens.

Cool!