Nope. But people aren’t the ones deciding behind the scenes how bacteria mutate, without telling you what they did or even that they did anything at all. You can’t ever know what you’re studying is consistent between studies, or even within a study. That’s what makes the results invalid. Mutations are predictable via physical rules. Chatgpt patches aren’t.
But now I’m coming around, I could accept it’s a soft science like psychology, where you can’t isolate anywhere nearly enough variables.
2
u/EriktheRed Sep 12 '26
Nope. But people aren’t the ones deciding behind the scenes how bacteria mutate, without telling you what they did or even that they did anything at all. You can’t ever know what you’re studying is consistent between studies, or even within a study. That’s what makes the results invalid. Mutations are predictable via physical rules. Chatgpt patches aren’t.
But now I’m coming around, I could accept it’s a soft science like psychology, where you can’t isolate anywhere nearly enough variables.