Pinned post
Tom Vondriska
Verified account This account is verified. Learn more@VondriskaLab
Chromatin, heart disease, and other stuff
see thomasvondriska dot sub stack dot com
see thomasvondriska dot sub stack dot com
2.1K Following 3K Followers 1.7K Posts
Latest posts 5
What's next for Vance
thomasvondriska.substack.com/p/miracle-myst…
thomasvondriska.substack.com/p/miracle-myst…
thomasvondriska.substack.com Miracle, Mystery and Authority What’s next One of the things the data analysts on our side obsessed over was "composition"—whether the electorate looked close enough to 2024 for Republicans to win. And despite polls that showed a Democrat blowout, the data kept on telling us the same story: in some states turnout was merely OK, in other states it was downright amazing, and in no state was it catastrophic. There was a genuine sense of optimism on our team: our people were showing up.View quoted post on X
So, I asked the smartest data guy I know, does that mean we're going to shock the world? "No," he told me. "We might do better than the polls suggest. But the data is telling us that a lot of Trump/Vance 2024 voters are pissed and planning to vote for the other guys. Our voters are turning out, but they may not vote for us."
Well, that looks prophetic now. Our voters did show up. In Florida, for example, the electorate was 9 points more Republican than Democrat, just a couple points worse than 2024. Undoubtedly there were places we could have done better on turnout. But the main problem is not turnout. The main problem is that many people who voted for Trump/Vance in 2024 voted for Democrats in 2026.
There will be a lot of infighting and arguing over what happened and why that is. One of the pollsters I really respect told me that our economic messaging wasn’t sharp enough down the stretch. I’m sure that’s true.
But the real reason we lost is obvious to almost everyone.
Another pollster—one of the smartest people I know in politics, told me yesterday we’d lose the generic ballot by 13 points. I felt negative going into Tuesday, but even I was shocked by this. In his polling, he saw that a lot of Trump 2024 voters were angry and planning to vote for Democrats. He asked those voters who had abandoned us what would cause them to come back on our team. The top four answers, accounting for nearly all of the responses were:
1) End the war
2) Focus on cost of living/inflation
3) Put America First
4) Change our relationship to Israel
Our voters showed up. And the above four reasons are why many of them voted for Democrats. This is according to a pollster who nailed the results. While many spent Monday attacking Rachel Campos Duffy for calling for a diplomatic resolution to the conflict, it turns out her political advice was sound. (She’s also a great person.)
In the next few months, there's going to be a lot of gaslighting. Expect to hear any number of establishment politicians say the solution to our woes is amnesty. I'm open to the idea that we should change enforcement—by focusing more on businesses that hire illegal labor, for instance. But anyone pushing amnesty is lying to you.
The reason we lost is the war. The president himself said so last night.
If you'd like to argue it was worth it, that losing the Senate for the next 6 years was worth it, then do so. Argue it was a worthwhile cost to pay. Agree or disagree, that's at least honest.
But everyone knows why we lost. And any honest conversation about where we go from here must start there.
I remain hopeful about our country. To the people who are pissed off and want to say, “I told you so”: you’re right, you did tell us so. Take that energy into electing Republicans who share your worldview. To the people who are just pissed at the results, you should be. Let’s take that anger and get back to the work of saving our country.
file this with: things self-evident that someone felt the need to publish on
"The ability to think about what is not happening is a cognitive achievement that comes at an emotional cost".View quoted post on X
An enjoyable read.
My own view is that AI would provide a far superior review to human beings. In fact, I can think of no scenario in which a human’s review would be better. The problem of ‘AI hallucinations’ is a straw man: human hallucinations are far worse, oftentimes from ‘experts’ with the subject matter. AI’s appraisal is corrected by improved data. That of many humans never can be.
More broadly, on current trajectory, there will be no reason to publish original research papers in a couple years, maybe sooner (even now there should never be another review article written by humans—thank god). The only way humans retain competitive advantage over AI is if we choose to heavily regulate it, like nuclear technology, and direct it towards eliminating the waste associated with research and medical care (which the authors correctly lament), rather than become another source increasing it. This seems to me an unlikely outcome, because of a collective action problem: right now, everyone is trying to get ahead with AI while still competing against other humans. Humans stand no chance in terms of novel discoveries, creative output and brute knowledge when competing directly against a super intelligent AI. Scientists will become like those who restore old cars or make furniture in their garages: an antiquated and inefficient, Luddite pursuit. Unnecessary. This transition will be painful for those of us entrenched in doing things the way we were taught, but afterwards who knows? One thing is certain: we will live long enough to see it happen.
My own view is that AI would provide a far superior review to human beings. In fact, I can think of no scenario in which a human’s review would be better. The problem of ‘AI hallucinations’ is a straw man: human hallucinations are far worse, oftentimes from ‘experts’ with the subject matter. AI’s appraisal is corrected by improved data. That of many humans never can be.
More broadly, on current trajectory, there will be no reason to publish original research papers in a couple years, maybe sooner (even now there should never be another review article written by humans—thank god). The only way humans retain competitive advantage over AI is if we choose to heavily regulate it, like nuclear technology, and direct it towards eliminating the waste associated with research and medical care (which the authors correctly lament), rather than become another source increasing it. This seems to me an unlikely outcome, because of a collective action problem: right now, everyone is trying to get ahead with AI while still competing against other humans. Humans stand no chance in terms of novel discoveries, creative output and brute knowledge when competing directly against a super intelligent AI. Scientists will become like those who restore old cars or make furniture in their garages: an antiquated and inefficient, Luddite pursuit. Unnecessary. This transition will be painful for those of us entrenched in doing things the way we were taught, but afterwards who knows? One thing is certain: we will live long enough to see it happen.
Giving AI a seat at the peer review table OR AI as Reviewer 4?
Nature Biotechnology
(nature.com/articles/s4158…)
Together with Aristotelis Tsirigos @artsinyc, we aim to open a dialogue on the responsible use of large language models and AI/SI in peer review. Rather than pretending reviewers do not use these tools, it is time to establish how to use them appropriately while safeguarding the confidentiality of manuscripts and grant applications.
Drosatos, K., Tsirigos, A. Giving AI a seat at the peer review table. Nat Biotechnol (2026). doi.org/10.1038/s41587…View quoted post on X
www.nytimes.com In an $80 Motel Room, a Discovery to Shed Light on the Origins of Life A scrappy science project led to a significant discovery: two new species of a rare organism that could elucidate a fundamental transition in the history of life on our planet.