A novelty coming from the Publisher of the esteemed Nature journal is scientific summaries generated by artificial intelligence. Nature, rightly, warns that there might be mistakes and asks for feedback:
“Nature Research Intelligence Topics
This Nature Research Intelligence Topic summary is one of 30,000 created with generative AI and the cited references. We take care to ground generative text with facts and have systems in place to gain human feedback on the overall quality of the process. We however cannot guarantee the accuracy of every summary and welcome feedback.”
I had a brief look at the summary dealing with the sensitivity to electromagnetic fields and I found in it an opinion that is being repeated already for years without thinking what it means and how erroneous it is.
Here is the opinion in question:
“Participants were unable to accurately identify when they were being exposed to EMF, suggesting that the symptoms reported may not be directly linked to EMF exposure itself [1].”
And here is what I wrote about using such misguided opinion to claim that EHS/IEI-EMF is not caused by exposure to EMF (emphasis added):
“Puzzlingly, the frequent observation that the self-declared EHS person can’t feel the wireless radiation and can’t recognize when the wireless transmitter emits radiation and when it is not transmitting, is considered ultimate proof that the form of individual sensitivity to wireless radiation called EHS is not caused by wireless radiation exposures. This is questionable as no person, sensitive or not, could feel the ionizing radiation or other non-ionizing radiation like ultraviolet in their environment.”
There are more misguided opinions in this and other texts generated by this Nature AI dealing with the biological effects of electromagnetic fields.
Just another cherry on top… One of the references used by the AI, reference #5, was published in the journal Heliyon. This journal was recently (September 2024) put on hold by the Web of Science, database of abstracts and citations. Web of Science has paused indexation of new content from the open-access journal Heliyon apparently due to concerns about the quality of their articles… and Nature’s AI uses the article from Heliyon as proof. A big question mark…
Conclusion: read the AI generated Nature journal’s science summaries carefully and critically before accepting any “knowledge” from them.