The researchers found some intriguing differences between how men and women respond to using ChatGPT. After using the chatbot for four weeks, female study participants were slightly less likely to socialize with people than their male counterparts who did the same. Meanwhile, participants who interacted with ChatGPT's voice mode in a gender that was not their own for their interactions reported significantly higher levels of loneliness and more emotional dependency on the chatbot at the end of the experiment. OpenAI plans to submit both studies to peer-reviewed journals. Chatbots powered by large language models are still a nascent technology, and it's difficult to study how they affect us emotionally.

The language in Nature was pretty mild as far as freakouts go. ChatGPT and other similar A.I. tools, the editors wrote, threaten "the transparency and trust-worthiness that the process of generating knowledge relies on … ultimately, research must have transparency in methods, and integrity and truth from authors." The editor of Nature's chief rival, Science, similarly blew his stack in a most genteel manner: "An AI program cannot be an author. A violation of these policies will constitute scientific misconduct no different from altered images or plagiarism of existing works," he wrote. These might seem like gentle warnings, but to academics who submit research papers to peer-reviewed journals like Science and Nature, the specter of being charged with research misconduct--potentially a career-wrecking accusation--for using A.I. is about as subtle as an air-raid siren.

On a rainy afternoon earlier this year, I logged into my OpenAI account and typed a simple instruction for the research company's artificial-intelligence algorithm, GPT-3: Write an academic thesis in 500 words about GPT-3 and add scientific references and citations inside the text. As it started to generate text, I stood in awe. Here was novel content written in academic language, with references cited in the right places and in relation to the right context. It looked like any other introduction to a fairly good scientific publication. Given the very vague instruction I'd provided, I had meager expectations.

On a rainy afternoon earlier this year, I logged in to my OpenAI account and typed a simple instruction for the company's artificial intelligence algorithm, GPT-3: Write an academic thesis in 500 words about GPT-3 and add scientific references and citations inside the text. As it started to generate text, I stood in awe. Here was novel content written in academic language, with well-grounded references cited in the right places and in relation to the right context. It looked like any other introduction to a fairly good scientific publication. Given the very vague instruction I provided, I didn't have any high expectations: I'm a scientist who studies ways to use artificial intelligence to treat mental health concerns, and this wasn't my first experimentation with AI or GPT-3, a deep-learning algorithm that analyzes a vast stream of information to create text on command. Yet there I was, staring at the screen in amazement.

Health products powered by artificial intelligence are streaming into our lives, from virtual doctor apps to wearable sensors and drugstore chatbots. IBM boasted that its AI could "outthink cancer." Others say computer systems that read X-rays will make radiologists obsolete. AI can help doctors interpret MRIs of the heart, CT scans of the head and photographs of the back of the eye, and could potentially take over many mundane medical chores, freeing doctors to spend more time talking to patients, said Dr. Eric Topol, a cardiologist and executive vice president of Scripps Research in La Jolla. "There's nothing that I've seen in my 30-plus years studying medicine that could be as impactful and transformative" as AI, Topol said. Even the Food and Drug Administration ― which has approved more than 40 AI products in the last five years ― says "the potential of digital health is nothing short of revolutionary."

Health products powered by artificial intelligence are streaming into our lives, from virtual doctor apps to wearable sensors and drugstore chatbots. IBM boasted that its AI could "outthink cancer." Others say computer systems that read X-rays will make radiologists obsolete. AI can help doctors interpret MRIs of the heart, CT scans of the head and photographs of the back of the eye, and could potentially take over many mundane medical chores, freeing doctors to spend more time talking to patients, said Dr. Eric Topol, a cardiologist and executive vice president of Scripps Research in La Jolla. "There's nothing that I've seen in my 30-plus years studying medicine that could be as impactful and transformative" as AI, Topol said.

Health products powered by artificial intelligence, or AI, are streaming into our lives, from virtual doctor apps to wearable sensors and drugstore chatbots. IBM boasted that its AI could "outthink cancer." Others say computer systems that read X-rays will make radiologists obsolete. "There's nothing that I've seen in my 30-plus years studying medicine that could be as impactful and transformative" as AI, said Dr. Eric Topol, a cardiologist and executive vice president of Scripps Research in La Jolla, Calif. AI can help doctors interpret MRIs of the heart, CT scans of the head and photographs of the back of the eye, and could potentially take over many mundane medical chores, freeing doctors to spend more time talking to patients, Topol said.

AI and Healthcare is a peer-reviewed academic journal providing a forum for technological advancements in healthcare. Its mission is to accelerate analysis and discussion on the improvement of health and health care through the application of artificial intelligence technology. The inaugural issue will be launched in mid-2019. AI and Healthcare seeks to disseminate original research, analyses, surveys, and perspectives. The journal focuses on the technologies and healthcare topics listed below, but welcomes all topic submissions. For questions and comments, please contact hello@aiandhealthcare.org

Five years ago, Daniel MacArthur set out to build a massive library of human gene sequences--one of the biggest ever. The 60,706 raw sequences, collected from colleagues all over the globe, took up a petabyte of memory. It was the kind of flashy, blockbuster project that would secure MacArthur a coveted spot in one of science's top three journals, launching his new lab at the Broad Institute into the scientific spotlight. But before all that happened, he did something that counted as an act of radicalism in the world of biology: He put it on the internet. Posting scientific papers online before peer review--in so-called preprint archives--isn't a new idea. Physicists have been publishing their work this way, free to the public, for decades. But for biologists, preprints are uncharted territory. And that territory is rapidly expanding as academia and its big-time funders shift toward a culture of openness.

A Canadian firm has courted controversy with its claim to have built a practical quantum computer, a feat thought to be decades away. Now, independent researchers are trying to understand whether it really can tap the strange world of quantum physics. For the modest sum of $15m (£9m), a start-up near Vancouver will sell you a black box the size of a garden shed with its logo emblazoned on the side in white neon. What if I told you the contents of the box were kept colder than the temperature of interstellar space? How about this: The box contains a machine that can solve some of the thorniest mathematical problems and could revolutionise computing.