AI will stop being trained with human data soon. We're already reaching the end-point of the human knowledge we can teach to LLMs in some fields. GPT-4 scored on the 99th percentile compared to test-takers in Biology Olympiad; and the 90th for the uniform bar exam, for instance.

For its advancement not to stagnate during the following years, it will have to start researching by itself.

I was going to answer you directly but decided to ask Chat GPT-4 and Bing.

Here's ChatGPT's answer:

>Summary: While a degree can provide a strong foundation and critical thinking skills, the cost of higher education and the evolving job market challenge its relevance. Fields resistant to automation, such as robotics, creative and design, environmental studies, and healthcare, are worth considering. However, pursuing interdisciplinary fields, self-directed learning, and continuous skill development may be necessary to remain adaptable and competitive in the job market.

Here's Bing's:

>Here is a summary of my answer: Automation and AI will change the future of work, but there will be new jobs and skills. You should study what you like and what you are good at, but also keep learning and adapting. A degree can help you, but it is not the only option. You have to choose what works best for you.

I consider GPT's answer more useful, but it is still flawed because the data it was trained on cuts off at 2021. We've seen far too many advancements right now to consider healthcare or environmental studies something humans will still do in four years. IMHO, the best option would be robotics. A physical representation of the capabilities of AI is what we lack right now.

However, at the very least, I think you should already be asking LLM's about these decisions.

Yes, I agree that Nutri-Score isn't the best metric. It's part of the criticism in my original comment, but I should have been more direct.

Regardless, the system is explained with the lack of evidence in the matter, especially open access, my opinion is that it's preferrable to have this than nothing.

Yes, I agree that the current iteration of Nutri-Score isn't the best metric. This part of the criticism in my original comment, but I should have been more direct.

Regardless, the system is explained in the paper itself and, with the lack of evidence in the matter, specially open access, my opinion is that it's preferrable to have this than nothing. Even more so as Nutri-Score is being widely used.

I don't think this is trying to push the narrative that plant-based alternatives are healthy because they explicitly point out that they aren't, regardless of their Nutri-Scores.

>That's probably what they mean with specific food groups substitution not supporting equivalent diet

If that were the case, the fact that they mention the higher protein in the meat alternatives would warrant the opposite conclusion. And somehow it doesn't.

Nevertheless protein quantity is far from being the only marker analysed here, and both milk and its alternatives were ranked equally healthy in average (B).

>Then for the other groups that have about the same nutrition value, they do not support an improved diet. In other words, they mean that plant based is worse or equivalent at most, which is what their data shows.

Not really. As stated, poultry and yoghurt alternatives were found to be healthier than their animal counterparts. Meanwhile only plant-based cheese scored lower.

​

The study is free access and I have pointed out where the information is, you can check it yourself.

>Why are you "wondering the reasons why"? Did you expect them to say it's "better" when the data doesn't support that?

This is the same argument as above, which goes contrary to their data (except on cheese, which I stated originally, but it's unhealthy in both options to be completely fair).

This title is extracted from the section 3.4 of the results. But this paper, albeit short is incredibly dense. Here’s some more information to complement it:

Figure 1 shows the composition of the plant-based alternatives.

Most remarkably, cheese imitations were exceptionally based on vegetable oils (83,1%) compared to other analogues whose main composition was either nuts, coconut, grains or pulses.

Furthermore, tables 3 and 4 analyse the nutritional composition of both meats and dairy products (milks, yoghurt and cheese). In those, we find (with p-values under 0,05):

• Generally, plant-based meats had significantly higher quantities of protein, carbohydrates and fiber; but lower of saturated fats and salt.
• Meanwhile, plant-based milks had significantly lower calories, protein, saturated fat and sugar.
• Plant-based yoghurts had significantly higher carbohydrate, sugar and fiber; but lower protein and saturated fat.
• Lastly, plant-based cheese had significantly higher saturated fat, carbohydrates and fiber; but lower calories, protein, total fat and sugar (which was low in both cases).

Interestingly, regardless of these findings, the authors state that:

>...the substitution of specific food groups with plant-based alternatives may not support an equivalent or improved diet.

I wonder the reasons why, as most alternatives had either the same or higher Nutri-Score on average, except cheese (which scored poorly in both cases).

My question is supported by the data shown in tables 3 and 4 where plant-based products were shown to contain significantly less saturated fats and higher fiber across most categories, which are typically associated with better health outcomes (1), (2).

For whatever reason my comments in this very post aren't showing up after 50 minutes. I'll try to share some of the information without the sources and source it in this other post.

Recent reports suggest that the largest global bird flu outbreak in history continues into 2023. A timely announcement by the WHO described a 56% fatality rate on humans infected by the H5N1 virus. According to the FAO, we bred 119 billion chickens last year alone.

This study, titled: Alarming situation of emerging H5 and H7 avian influenza and effective control strategies, also explains the origin of the viruses causing the current pandemic. But there is an even more interesting point.

An excerpt from this study in question:

>Epidemiology studies have shown that humans become infected mainly through exposure to virus-infected poultry or a contaminated environment ; human-to-human transmission has been very limited. Therefore, before the H5 and H7 viruses acquire the ability to transmit from human to human, control of these viruses in animals is essential and effective to prevent them from infecting humans.

Here is more information, sourced. By u/Plant__Eater:

Perhaps the biggest risk of disease concerning livestock and poultry is influenza A - the only influenza virus known to cause pandemics.[9] It is hypothesized that every influenza virus that causes pandemics in humans is derived from avian influenza in aquatic birds.[10] Normally this wouldn't be an issue for us. The infected wild birds usually don't get sick, and the virus doesn't easily spread amongst humans.[11] But industrialized animal agriculture has changed that. One scientific review writes:

>Hosts such as swine and gallinaceous poultry that are favorable for transmission and efficient replication of both zoonotic and human viruses can serve as mixing vessels and pose the greatest risk for the development of novel reassortments that can replicate competently in humans.[12]

In other words, livestock and poultry are great at making it easier for viruses to spread amongst humans. As to why this is, one author explains:

>...virtually every effort to further industrialize broiler [chicken] biology has resulted in the emergence of new risks and vulnerabilities. Intensive confinement combined with increased genetic uniformity has created new opportunities for the spread of pathogens. Increased breast-meat yield has come at the expense of increased immunodeficiency.[13]

It is likely that animal agriculture enabled the 1957 Asian Flu, 1968 Hong Kong Flu,[14] bird flu,[15] and the 2009 swine flu.[16] Of these, bird flu is the cause for most concern. In past outbreaks, the case-fatality (CF) rate was 60 percent, although one study suggests that if it became a larger pandemic, it would have a median CF rate of approximately 23.5 percent.[17] It is thought that the 1918 Spanish Flu may have infected one-third of the global population and had a CF rate of 2.5 percent.[18] If bird flu were to mutate in such a way that it was anywhere near as contagious as Spanish Flu, with a CF rate almost 10 times higher than Spanish Flu, the results would be apocalyptic. As two authors wrote in a WHO publication:

>We can't scare people enough about H5N1 [bird flu].[19]