"Toxic atmosphere" definitely implies something that I don't seem to be finding in the actual paper. We regularly sit in environments that are 2-3x the levels of atmospheric CO2.

Also, was this paper AI written?

> "There is now a considerable body of published data showing impacts at levels < 1,000ppm CO2, although the effects of exposure remain controversial."

Which is followed by this, with the very AI "For example" that seems to mostly contradict that statement?

> "For example, one study found no impact of exposure to levels up to 15,000 ppm (Rodeheffer et al., 2018), however the study population was a group of highly trained US Navy submariners. Conversely, studies in young adults (Satish et al., 2012), office workers (Allen et al., 2016) and university staff/students (Snow et al., 2019) showed negative effects at CO2 levels as low as 950 ppm."

And then "Such studies are supported by assessment of CO2-induced changes in human brainwaves, measured by electroencephalography (EEG) combined with cognitive tests (reviewed in (Zhang et al., 2024)). Such studies show that exposure to CO2 between 1,000 and 2,500 ppm results in heightened brain activity."

"Such studies" ... "such studies". And these studies seem to contradict the proceeding statement even more?

▲

dwroberts 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Not saying the paper isn’t AI, but “for example” is an extremely commonly used phrase that you should not be using as an AI indicator

	▲	strictnein 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I get that it's common, but I just spent this week getting some patent docs ready, and was having GPT 5.5 help me with gathering some of the details. I had to remove "for example" dozens of times. So maybe it's just recency bias for me.

▲

oytis 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't know about you, but occasionally going outside to breathe some fresh air makes a lot of difference for me

▲

hogwasher 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

with the very AI "For example"??????????????????

	▲	strictnein 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah, I'd already responded to this twice before you made your insightful comment. Again, recency bias maybe, but I spent this week removing dozens of "for example" from the output of GPT-5.5.

▲

OutOfHere 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

strictnein 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> "For example" is AI, then your ability to reason is highly compromised.

Thanks for the insult, my friend.

Earlier this week I had GPT-5.5 help me complete some areas in three different patent docs that were just filed, and I had to remove "for example" from its output dozens of times when I was reviewing it for accuracy.

▲

OutOfHere 4 hours ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲

strictnein 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> This should've been obvious to any educated person.

Sigh... it's just so tiresome to run into people like you. Have a good life, my dude.

	▲	OutOfHere 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		For example, both AI and humans use semicolons. If you see a semicolon, are you suddenly going to claim it's AI? Where do you think a semicolon originates from if not from human writing?

▲

NDlurker 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Could be suffering from CO2 toxicity