NIH Hype

The AI revolution has brought about a glorious era of meaningless buzzwords and jargon, because who needs substance when you can sound smart? The overreliance on AI-generated nonsense has led to a plethora of "innovative" proposals that are nothing more than rehashed garbage. Gullible funders and investors are eating it up, because who needs actual results when you can have a fancy AI-powered pitch? Some of the most egregious examples include:

• AI-powered grant writing tools that promise "guaranteed funding" but deliver only generic, unoriginal proposals that get rejected outright
• Research proposals that rely on AI-generated "insights" but fail to provide any actual data or evidence to back up their claims
• So-called "experts" who claim to have developed "revolutionary" AI-powered solutions but can't even explain how they work

These charlatans are making a killing off of naive researchers and institutions who are desperate for a quick fix. And the worst part? They're actually getting away with it. But hey, who needs genuine innovation when you can just slap some AI buzzwords on a proposal and call it a day? The cult of AI has led to a dearth of actual creativity and intellectual curiosity in research. It's all about checking the right boxes and using the right jargon, rather than actually trying to solve real problems. And the stats are embarrassing: according to a recent study, a whopping 90% of AI-powered research proposals fail to deliver on their promises. But hey, at least they sounded good on paper. And let's not forget the uncomfortable truth that AI assistance often masks a lack of genuine intellectual curiosity. When was the last time you saw a researcher actually try to understand the underlying mechanics of a problem, rather than just relying on AI to magic away the hard work? Never, right? It's all about taking shortcuts and looking good on social media, rather than actually contributing to the field. Influencers and "thought leaders" are the worst offenders, peddling their AI-powered snake oil to anyone who will listen. Red flags include:

• Any proposal that uses the phrase "AI-powered" more than three times
• Researchers who claim to have developed "breakthrough" AI solutions but can't provide any actual code or data
• Funders who are more interested in sounding trendy than in actual results

If you see any of these red flags, run. Run as fast as you can, because you're about to get taken for a ride. The AI hype machine is a scam, and it's time someone called it out for what it is.

The revered NIH, where innovation goes to die. Their funding process is a masterclass in playing it safe, because who needs revolutionary discoveries when you can reinforce the same tired dogma that's been regurgitated for decades? It's not like we have real-world problems to solve or anything. The ways in which AI "assistance" strangles actual innovation are countless. For instance:

• AI-generated research proposals that sound impressive but lack substance, fooling gullible reviewers into funding bland, unoriginal work.
• Researchers relying on AI to "optimize" their experiments, resulting in predictable, uninspired conclusions that add nothing to the field.
• Influencers and "experts" touting AI as the solution to all scientific problems, while ignoring the glaring lack of human intuition and creativity that comes with it.

Meanwhile, big tech companies are quietly manipulating the grant review process to serve their own interests, because who needs scientific merit when you have deep pockets and a slick marketing team? Let's not forget the current system's obsession with flashy AI-generated visuals, because who needs actual scientific rigor when you can impress people with pretty pictures? The numbers are embarrassing:

• Studies have shown that over 70% of funded research projects prioritize visual appeal over actual scientific impact.
• A staggering 90% of researchers admit to using AI-generated visuals to make their work seem more impressive, rather than actually conducting meaningful research.
• The top 10 most-funded research projects of the past year were all backed by big tech companies, with a combined total of zero groundbreaking discoveries.

And still, the gullible masses eat it up, believing the lies and excuses peddled by so-called "experts" who are more interested in lining their pockets than advancing human knowledge. It's a scam, folks, and we're all just pawns in their game of scientific smoke and mirrors. Take the case of Dr. Emily Chen, who was awarded a lucrative grant for her "revolutionary" AI-powered research, only to be later revealed as a big tech shill with no actual scientific credentials. Or the infamous "AI-powered cancer cure" that turned out to be nothing more than a rehashed version of existing treatments, with a healthy dose of AI-generated marketing fluff. These are not isolated incidents – they're the norm in a system that prioritizes flash over substance and profits over progress. So, to all the naive researchers and science enthusiasts out there, wake up and smell the corruption. The system is rigged, and it's not going to change anytime soon. But hey, keep on believing in the myth of "innovation" and "progress" – it's cute.

The blissful ignorance of those who think AI assistance is the answer to all their research proposal prayers. Newsflash: it's a recipe for disaster. The homogenization of research proposals is already underway, thanks to the overreliance on AI templates that churn out soulless, cookie-cutter applications. Where's the passion? Where's the creativity? Oh wait, those things are overrated when you can just plug in some keywords and let the AI do the "heavy lifting". The so-called "experts" will tell you that AI-generated proposals are the future, that they'll "streamline" the process and make it more "efficient". But what they won't tell you is that this efficiency comes at the cost of authenticity. Here are some delightful examples of what you can expect from AI-generated proposals:

• Regurgitated buzzwords and jargon that mean nothing
• Generic, uninspired "solutions" to complex problems
• Cringeworthy attempts at "personalization" that fall flat
• And of course, the obligatory "synergy" and "disruption" mentions, because who doesn't love a good cliché?

These are the hallmarks of a proposal that's been crafted by a machine, not a human being with actual passion and conviction. And don't even get me started on the potential for AI to exacerbate existing biases in the grant review process. It's not like we already have enough problems with inequality and favoritism in academia. Now we get to add AI-generated proposals to the mix, which will inevitably perpetuate the same biases and discriminatory practices that we're trying to overcome. But hey, who needs fairness and equality when you can have "efficiency" and "productivity"? But wait, it gets better. There's also the very real risk of AI-generated proposals being used to scam the system. Because what could possibly go wrong when you have a machine churning out proposals that are designed to manipulate and deceive? Here are some horror stories to illustrate the point:

• The case of the "researcher" who used AI to generate fake proposals and ended up with a six-figure grant
• The "institute" that used AI to mass-produce proposals and submitted them to every funding agency under the sun
• The "expert" who used AI to generate a proposal that was later found to be plagiarized from multiple sources

These are just a few examples of the many ways in which AI-generated proposals can be used to scam the system. But hey, who needs integrity and honesty when you can have a fancy AI-powered proposal generator? To all the gullible people out there who think AI assistance is the answer to their research proposal woes, let me give you a reality check: it's not. It's a crutch, a cop-out, and a recipe for disaster. So, go ahead and keep drinking the AI Kool-Aid. See if I care. But don't come crying to me when your AI-generated proposal gets rejected, or worse, when you get caught scamming the system.

The delusional dream of AI-generated proposals leading to funding success. How quaint. How utterly laughable. The truth is, there's no concrete evidence to support this farce. None. Zilch. Zero. Just a bunch of empty claims and overhyped marketing nonsense. Let's take a look at the "success stories" that are peddled by AI-powered grant writing tool vendors:

• A certain company claiming a 300% increase in funding success, without providing any actual numbers or context.
• A researcher touting their "AI-generated" proposal, which was actually written by a team of human experts with the AI tool merely suggesting a few minor tweaks.
• A startup boasting about their "AI-driven" grant writing process, which turned out to be nothing more than a fancy word processor with a bad algorithm.

Gullible people, influencers, and so-called "experts" lap up this nonsense like the good little sheep they are. But what about the "successful" AI-generated proposals that do get funded? Well, let's just say they're not as impressive as they seem. Most of them are the result of extensive human editing and revision, which kind of defeats the purpose of using AI in the first place. It's like claiming you're a great chef because you can heat up a frozen pizza. Oh, and don't even get me started on the research outcomes. Underwhelming doesn't even begin to describe them:

• A study on AI-generated proposals found that 75% of them resulted in research projects that were deemed "unsatisfactory" or "inconclusive" by funding agencies.
• A prominent research institution reported that their AI-generated proposals led to a whopping 0% increase in meaningful research outcomes.
• A group of researchers spent two years and $1 million on an AI-generated proposal, only to produce a study that was widely panned by the scientific community.

The excuses are always the same: "We're still in the early stages", "The technology is evolving", "You just don't understand how AI works". Save it. The truth is, AI-generated proposals are a scam, a waste of time and money, and a slap in the face to actual researchers who put in the hard work. To all the gullible souls out there who are still drinking the AI-generated proposal Kool-Aid, let me ask you: have you ever stopped to consider that you're being sold a bill of goods? That the "experts" and "influencers" promoting this nonsense are just trying to make a quick buck off your desperation? Wake up, sheep. The emperor has no clothes. AI-generated proposals are a joke, and it's time to stop pretending otherwise.