The theme: curiosity. But UKRI CEO's got one end in view—'the inventions & products that have revolutionized the world... most of all, thank you to the researchers & inventors who are curious enough to ask those questions & invent the products that change our lives.'
www.linkedin.com/posts/britis...
Will UKRI calls with even larger grants for projects promising higher 'leverage' be announced a fortnight before the deadline for the full consortium application to underline that outcome focus?
On the UKRI call for bids for a Fundamental AI Research Lab, with a 4-week turnaround for £40m, 'Pandya [EPSRC's Exec Director, Strategy Directorate] said the four-week application window reflects the “outcome focus” of UKRI’s AI strategy...'
What?
www.researchprofessional.com/news-article...
This video is a great one to watch.
Former intelligence member explains the Iranian/Epstein war. Daily.
#SheShed
'stopping to converse with Chapman. The latter, not understanding his friend's odd behaviour, halted and cried: 'What are you doing, old man?'
"Dogging a fled horse," Keats said as he passed by.'
5/5
'following the trail. It happened that Chapman was on a solitary walking tour in the vicinity and he was agreeably surprised to encounter the poet in a remote mountainy place. Keats was walking quickly with his eyes on the ground and looked very preoccupied. He had evidently no intention of
4/5
'escape had been effected and then travelled all over the yard on his hands and knees looking for traces of the animal's hooves. He was like a dog looking for a trail, except that he found a trail where many a good dog would have found nothing. Immediately the poet was off cross-country
3/5
'another, but finally he was discovered one morning to have disappeared from his stable. Foul play was not suspected nor did the poet at this stage adopt the foolish expedient of locking the stable door. On the contrary he behaved very sensibly. He examined the stable to ascertain how the
2/5
It's Friday so why not a bit of Keats and Chapman as re-imagined by Myles na gCopaleen?
'Keats, when living in the country, purchased an expensive chestnut gelding. This animal was very high-spirited and largely untrained and gave the novice owner a lot of trouble. First it was one thing, then
1/5
They were once briefly on the mind of the UK's transport secretary.
youtu.be/zI0dPGuP2zE?...
Hot on the heels of his video on the UKRI budget allocations, in which we learn that a few buckets are better than dozens of jam jars, & that 'we want to concertedly maximize the returns from this investment to improve people's lives and improve their livelihoods'.
youtu.be/osnqHbOywVY?...
How efficient this government of change is.
www.middleeasteye.net/news/refugee...
How do you limit the black box to minor changes? Honestly, I haven't a clue. I never use LLMs to modify my own writing. Besides, aren't books on how to write plainly full of examples demonstrating how minor syntactic variations can make major semantic differences?
I'll give that LLM one thing though. On this occasion, its syntax was fine. Maybe the world could do with a bit more comedy.
Meaning is complex. The academic who'd sent it to me is no slacker. I'm sure he had re-read the part he'd got an LLM to 'polish'. He had no idea that he'd transformed it into comedy.
I'm my day job, I review funding proposals, many written by non-native speakers. Last year, one sent me a document in which the English in one part had been LLMed. That section read like it had been written by an American used-car salesperson. It would have made any native speaking academic laugh.
In my first language, yes. In the language I'm next most fluent in, no.
After my main language, the one I know next best is French. If I write some crap French then feed it into an LLM-polishing black box, I'd be no more able to trust the output than the input if I re-read it ten times.
How can you know the 'polishing' has not changed the meaning?
Following hot on the heels of the STFC cuts, the defunding of FAAM by UKRI shows similar "inconsistence" as clearly illustrated by the Royal Meteorological Society in their statement www.rmets.org/news/stateme... (1/3)
Did the Bog Stank?
And they're already back at the hotel the day after the show started? What went wrong there?
So do marine biologists talk about field work without batting an eyelid?
It's disgraceful that Innovate UK awarded so much public money to this company.
When is an ocean a field? In a review of WB Alexander's 'Birds of the Ocean', viz. 'subspecies are wisely mentioned only in the notes, with their respective ranges but with no attempt to differentiate
them as their characters can rarely be distinguished in the field.'
An academic who first alerted me to the call told me there are just 2 possible explanations—it's a fit-up or a clear demo of EPSRC or UKRI incompetence. I'd say those aren't mutually exclusive.
The comms have indeed been terrible. But the idea that this is primarily a communication problem is just a comfort blanket for Vallance and Chapman. The message is awful no matter how it is communicated.
Quite so. It's the glitter they've chosen to roll their turds in.
They had to make some allowance for Easter!
The New York Times went with a different angle.
