<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Paradigm-Lock on BRYSGO</title><link>https://www.brysgo.com/tags/paradigm-lock/</link><description>Recent content in Paradigm-Lock on BRYSGO</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2026 15:57:47 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://www.brysgo.com/tags/paradigm-lock/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Train AI on the Rebuttals That Didn't Work</title><link>https://www.brysgo.com/post/2026-04-17-train-ai-on-the-rebuttals-that-didn-t-work/</link><pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2026 15:57:47 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://www.brysgo.com/post/2026-04-17-train-ai-on-the-rebuttals-that-didn-t-work/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;Every researcher who has written a meticulous, airtight rebuttal and watched their score stay flat has generated the most valuable training signal in science—and nobody is using it.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I&amp;rsquo;ve been thinking about this for a while. The academic review process produces this strange artifact: a document where someone makes a genuinely good argument, the argument goes nowhere, and then the whole exchange gets buried in a conference management system forever. We treat it as failure. We should treat it as data.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>