Readit NewsThe findings in this game that the "thinking" model never did thinking seems odd, does the model not always show it's thinking steps? It seems bizarre that it wouldn't once reach for that tool when it must be being bombarded with seemingly contradictory information from other players.
Mind you, the US actually shot and killed a real protester yesterday.
For indie games in particular, that is very much not true. In fact, Steam has a 'made with AI' label, so it's not even true on that platform.
Peer review doesn't catch errors.
Acting as if it does, and thus assuming the fact of publication (and where it was published) are indicators of veracity is simply unfounded. We need to go back to the food fight system where everyone publishes whatever they want, their colleagues and other adversaries try their best to shred them, and the winners are the ones that stand up to the maelstrom. It's messy, but it forces critics to put forth their arguments rather than quietly gatekeeping, passing what they approve of, suppressing what they don't.
So as great as Mathematica sounds for interactive math and science computations, sounds like a poor tool for building systems that will be deployed and used by many people.
I think I would only switch from Overleaf if I was writing a textbook or something similarly involved.