Opening — Why this matters now AI in medicine has spent years stuck in a familiar loop: impressive demos, retrospective benchmarks, and very little proof that any of it survives first contact with clinical reality. Radiology, in particular, has been flooded with models that look brilliant on paper and quietly disappear when workflow friction, hardware constraints, and human trust enter the room. ...
Opening — Why this matters now Healthcare AI has entered its foundation model phase. LLMs trained on trillions of tokens are being casually proposed for everything from triage to prognosis, often with an implicit assumption: bigger models must understand patients better. This paper quietly punctures that assumption. By benchmarking LLMs against smaller, task‑focused language models (SLMs) on shock prediction in ICUs, the authors confront a question most vendors avoid: Do LLMs actually predict future clinical deterioration better—or do they merely sound more convincing? ...
Opening — Why this matters now Large language models have learned to see. Unfortunately, they still have the attention span of a distracted intern when the video runs longer than a minute. As multimodal LLMs expand their context windows and promise “end-to-end” video understanding, a hard reality remains: long videos are not just longer inputs—they are fundamentally different reasoning problems. Information is sparse, temporally distant, multimodal, and often only meaningful when grounded precisely in time and space. Compress everything up front, and you lose the evidence. Don’t compress, and you blow the context budget. ...
Opening — Why this matters now Industrial digital twins have quietly become the backbone of modern manufacturing optimization—until you try to build one. What should be a faithful virtual mirror of a factory floor too often devolves into weeks of manual object placement, parameter tuning, and brittle scripting. At a time when generative AI is promising faster, cheaper, and more adaptive systems, digital twins have remained stubbornly artisanal. ...
Opening — Why this matters now Embodied AI has learned how to move. It has learned how to listen. It has even learned how to respond. But when it comes to learning how to feel, most systems quietly panic the moment the world changes. Robots trained to walk sadly forget how to do so once they start running. Avatars that learned exaggerated emotion on stage lose subtlety in sports. This isn’t a bug—it’s the inevitable outcome of static datasets colliding with a dynamic world. ...
Opening — Why this matters now GUI agents are finally competent enough to click buttons without embarrassing themselves. And yet, they suffer from a strangely human flaw: they forget everything they just learned. Each task is treated as a clean slate. Every mistake is patiently re‑made. Every success is quietly discarded. In a world obsessed with scaling models, this paper asks a simpler, sharper question: what if agents could remember? ...
Opening — Why this matters now Reinforcement learning keeps winning benchmarks, but keeps losing the same argument: it doesn’t generalize. Train it here, deploy it there, and watch confidence evaporate. Meanwhile, classical planning—decidedly uncool but stubbornly correct—has been quietly producing policies that provably work across arbitrarily large problem instances. This paper asks the uncomfortable question the RL community often dodges: can modern policy-gradient methods actually learn general policies, not just big ones? ...
Opening — Why this matters now For years, we have comforted ourselves with a tidy distinction: models generalize, databases memorize. Recent research quietly dismantles that boundary. As LLMs scale, memorization is no longer an edge case—it becomes a structural property. That matters if you care about data leakage, IP exposure, or regulatory surprises arriving late but billing retroactively. ...
Opening — Why this matters now Clinical AI has entered an uncomfortable phase of maturity. Models are no longer failing loudly; they are failing quietly. They produce fluent answers, pass public benchmarks, and even outperform physicians on narrowly defined tasks — until you look closely at what those benchmarks are actually measuring. The paper at hand dissects one such case: MedCalc-Bench, the de‑facto evaluation standard for automated medical risk-score computation. The uncomfortable conclusion is simple: when benchmarks are treated as static truth, they slowly drift away from clinical reality — and when those same labels are reused as reinforcement-learning rewards, that drift actively teaches models the wrong thing. ...
Opening — Why this matters now Large Language Models have already proven they can talk science. The harder question is whether they can do science—reliably, repeatably, and without a human standing by to fix their mistakes. Nowhere is this tension clearer than in computational materials science, where one incorrect parameter silently poisons an entire simulation chain. ...