logoalt Hacker News

franciscoptoday at 3:05 AM3 repliesview on HN

A bit of a tangent but I've read this phrase almost verbatim in another article[1] today:

> "This study is really good," says Sunghwan Jung, a biophysicist at Cornell University who studies the mechanics of animal movements and was not involved with the research. It shows, he says, that the guts of these animals "are very special."

The other article [1] quote:

> It’s “an impressive step,” said Jack Szostak (opens a new tab), who studies the origins of life at the University of Chicago and was not involved in the research. “I don’t know of any other effort to put together an artificial cell from biological components that has progressed so far.”

Are these editorial guidelines to get an independent read? Just coincidence? I don't think they are LLM bits because I expect better from these magazines, but it's too eerily similar.

[1] https://www.quantamagazine.org/for-the-first-time-a-cell-bui...


Replies

arjietoday at 3:55 PM

Isn't the more parsimonious explanation that science journalists and writers have scientist friends or advisors who they consult when something interesting happens? I imagine their correspondence going something like:

"Hi, Jack, came across this thing where they claim to have created artificial life. Is it real?"

"It's an impressive step..."

"Hey, Jack, there's this new thing called LK-99 that everyone is excited about. Why?"

"It's not real"

Some amount of `site:www.quantamagazine.org "Jack Szostak"` querying on Google seems to indicate this might be the case. Though I have to say it's probably not everyone who has a Nobel laureate on their rolodex for a quick "hi, is this real?"

doctoboggantoday at 3:49 AM

Yes, good science writing almost always gets an opinion from someone not involved in the research for the article. I would guess varying definitions of "not involved" depending on the repute of the publication.

show 1 reply
ambicaptertoday at 3:48 AM

I think this is just a way of breaking up the quote that adds attribution in the middle. Probably a common reporting phrasing more so than an LLM invention (Or maybe it's a real quote in both cases, but they used an LLM to write parts of the article, just making sure the quotes are correct in the end).