AI companies already scrape preprint data for profit, before publication (and BioRxiv says that is allowed). So AI companies or individual humans using AI can easily scoop you that way, too. Or just give the oligarch your data directly? "Like taking candy from a baby"

Pretty. Curious: are they really 10 microns long? (eyeballing your scalebar). In the mouse embryonic brain, the primary cilia on neuroepithelial stem cells are only 1-2 microns long.

In an ideal world, we would always publish raw images as supplement to processed images (even if only old-fashioned changes like brightness and contrast). HOWEVER, data storage space for images is already a huge problem/unfunded mandate and we are forced to pay for it off grants.

Good idea, if you want to pursue, you could email the NYT reporter Stella Chu and suggest a new article about the actual disease and biology... (click on her name at bottom of NYT article). ... or BBC reporter etc.

Don't copyright and IP/patent laws still apply to software? Isn't this similar to the tech companies using AI to steal all authors' and publications' books and articles, and then sell sell "mimic" books and articles made with that stolen copyrighted material? Theft is theft. Nation of laws??

What is this cell type or tissue?

Please share--2 tenure track positions!

If "renditions" are allowed, then it's an art contest inspired by nature, NOT a scientific microscopy contest. They need to define what the contest is for, and have rules. These days, that means rules about use of AI. Especially "unsupervised" AI!