> "Human forebrain and hindbrain arise from distinct embryonic progenitor lineages"
I'd have never clicked that headline nor understood why this finding is important.
If you think the original headline is not "truthful" enough, at least do something like "Researchers found the reason why hindbrain cells cannot be grown in a lab and found a way to overcome it"
> not that we have "two organs" in the brain.
Depends what the definition of "organ" actually is. What speaks for different organs here is that the cells both have a different pathway from stem cells and have different evolutionary histories. That is different from other brain regions that may have separate functions but still evolved together.
Saying the truth and communicating well are orthogonal. You can do both.
We should not be wary of loud truths either. Unless we push the envelope we cannot trace back to the essence. Like, as an outsider in this discussion, I am now inclined not only to assess the finding, but also the definition of an organ. The title did good work. Its refutation too. Fencing every statement in unquestionable truth does not make the pursuit of truth stronger.
But there’s rarely one correct answer. Conveying the same approximate message to multiple types of readers is extremely difficult in a handful of words. People with subject matter knowledge are annoyed by headlines written for laypeople that don’t know the jargon or have a mental model of the important concepts that jargon represents. They always seem to miss important distinctions, make poor analogies, or the like. Headline-length blurbs that successfully convey those things to the knowledgeable are often utterly opaque to laypeople causing them to ignore articles about topics they’d find interesting. The only option is trying to estimate the subject matter expertise of the audience, and despite many people in the tech world assuming their software knowledge gives them technical expertise in many non-software fields, the layperson headline is absolutely the best approach here.
Not one bit of that justifies actively misleading people. Which is what that headline does.
I think that’s an exaggeration. Oversimplification? Poor analogy? Sure. Deliberately misleading? I don’t see it.
“…but LLMs can’t” is the unspoken sticking point.
This is not true. There is a complex relationship between truth and good communication. The relationship is non linear and convoluted and it depends often on the subject of what is being communicated.
There are many many cases where lies are easier to communicate than the truth.
Take tobacco for instance. For the longest time we did not know it was bad for you. It took decades of epidemiological research and statistical techniques to ascertain that it was bad.
The truth was buried in numbers and human knowledge about applied mathematics and statistics. Without centuries of human endeavor to create the concept of science unionized with the rigor of statistics the truth would have remained forever invisible.
The sheer complexity of the truth in this case makes is extremely hard to communicate. We mostly trust that smoking is bad based off of the reputation of the researchers who established that fact. But the truth was never really directly communicated to most of us as it involves diving deep into the data.
> There is a complex relationship between truth and *good* communication. [...] There are many many cases where lies are *easier to communicate* than the truth.
You're literally conflating good communication with easy communication.
Easy communication correlates highly with good communication. It is easier to do good communication on easier topics.
The truth about tobacco was known for years but ignored because 1) industry lobbying and 2) the Nazis were the ones who figured it out, and pushed anti-smoking hard, so smoking became something "our side" did, 3) tobacco was still a huge US export.
It was easy to communicate, but we were motivated to not listen.
No the deaths were buried deep in the statistical data. It’s not apparent and we did not know either way.
Yes there were people who said it’s bad but their word was as good as bullshit because until we had the statistics there is literally no way to truly know.
No, the Germans had good statistical data linking smoking (as well as asbestos and other carcinogens) to cancer by the 1930s; this was known and ignored (or actively derided) by the allies. It's one of the classic and well known examples of ad hominem.
[flagged]
You understand what I did there?
Ah you told a lie. Demonstrating how easy it is to make it look true.
To me, this suddenly turned the discussion into a fascinating exploration and demonstration of different standards of truthfulness in marketing.
I still don't see how the original headline was not truthful.
It's as truthful and useful as "75.6% of humans who ingest oxygen end up dead".
That’s only wrong because it’s 100%.
Isn't it more like 93%? On the other 7% data is still inconclusive, they never died
Depends on if the study is ongoing
75.6% die is right, it's just that the other 24.4% do too.
Past results are not an indicator of future performance. YMMV.
I think it's less about what was said (it is truthful) and more what isn't mentioned in the title which leaves ambiguity.
I don't necessarily think it's intentional. For those with knowledge in the field I suspect it resonates the appropriate reaction.
For those outside of the field, I think the perception of what being 2 organs means does a lot of leg work in invoking a response which seems exaggerated, but is probably caused by incorrect assumptions of what the title is trying to convey.
I hope that makes some sense, I feel that was a lot of word vomit but I'm struggling to find the right words, it's somewhat meta
I actually saw the previous version yesterday and read it. Then I saw this one today and thought it was a different finding. Somewhat annoying.
> I'd have never clicked that headline nor understood why this finding is important
Does this finding change your life in any meaningful way?
> Armed with this knowledge, the researchers for the first time successfully coaxed human pluripotent stem cells (a kind of cell that can create any cell in the human body) to become functional hindbrain motor neurons in the laboratory.
...
> The research also has implications for investigating treatments for SMA, ALS and other conditions affecting the brain stem. Until now, studying these diseases has been nearly impossible because scientists cannot obtain brain stem tissue from living patients. The ability to grow these neurons in a dish opens new possibilities for understanding what goes wrong.
But no, nothing to see here, not worth our time for this overblown article apparently ...
> The research also has implications for investigating treatments for SMA, ALS and other conditions affecting the brain stem.
Are you working on research for any of these? If no, then this article is just "empty calories" in your information diet. If yes, I'd assume (hope, even) that you wouldn't be hearing from this through some institutional PR piece.
Because no layman should ever keep up yo date on research?
By that logic, most of HN is "empty calories". Then why are you here?
this is a great walk through the curiousity of the hindbrain: https://radiolab.org/podcast/song-of-the-cerebellum
The findings arn't exactly "new" but the medical science about it is definitely lagging current research.
> I'd have never clicked that headline nor understood why this finding is important.
Why do you think it's important?
In the context of a link aggregator, it’s arguably the only thing that matters
You don't think it's important?
You stated that the current headline informs you why the result is important. Why is that? Surely, given that the information was communicated to you, you can share it with me?
What I found important was this: "Researchers found the reason why hindbrain cells cannot be grown in a lab and found a way to overcome it"
But that finding is a direct consecutive of the "cerebellum is a different organ" finding from the headline.