The writing here seems very odd. It reads like a product announcement or blog page, not an article in Nature. I'm left questioning its validity.
That was fun but this is gun?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-026-03375-4
The two teams could "synergize" their tacit knowledge, overcome "involution"?
Without open peer review like in the old days it's hard, even with frontier models, for nonexperts to know if the above breakthrough was (unfairly?) relegated or how significant TFA is truly
[dead]
Hmm. I didn’t get that impression from a quick skim. Just curious: what makes you think that?
I would guess it's the 'vast' and the 'unprecedented' for example.