1/ 🚨 New Paper Alert! 🚨 Can AI understand urban attractiveness as humans do? Our latest study compares ChatGPT's ratings of urban environments in Helsinki to those of human participants. The results are eye-opening for urban planners. 🧵 Paper: https://t.co/VOeB4LmO1E

.@miladmzdh was once told that to be successful in #academia, developing unique expertise was necessary. Over the years, he learned that diversification is more valuable. https://t.co/jlX4mMMmwu

Should science give itself more room to dream? I’d love to hear your thoughts. 🔗 My Nature Correspondence:

Is this too far-fetched? Maybe. Are there risks? Yes, speculation could be misinterpreted as fact. But the potential reward is greater: to legitimize imagination, spark discovery, and let science dream again.

Yes, we already have “future research” sections or perspectives. But do they really give us space to be bold? Too often they are reviewed into the same cautious tone as standard articles, full of evidence and hedges.

Why do this? ✅ Captures valuable ideas that otherwise stay private ✅ Stimulates new research directions ✅ Restores the human voice to science, showing not just what we found, but what we dare to think

My proposal: add a short, clearly labeled Speculation Box in research papers. 📦 A visually distinct section (literally boxed) 📦 Contains bold but non-evidence-based ideas 📦 Disclaimer: this is speculation, not evidence

Of course, evidence must remain the backbone of science. But if we never share the daring interpretations, causal hunches, or big possibilities inspired by our results, we aren’t paving the way for future discovery. We risk slowing it down.

Science today is rigorous, precise, and trustworthy. That’s good. But when it comes to imagination, we often hold back. We hedge, we understate, we avoid saying bold things, because reviewers (or readers) ask: “Where’s your evidence?”

🚨 New Publication in Nature! 🚨 I argue for a simple but radical idea: add a “Speculation Box” to research papers. A space where scientists can share bold ideas + daring interpretations, clearly labeled as speculation, not evidence. 🔗 https://t.co/65gJUREbZ8

AI will not decide the future of cities on its own. We will. The real question: Will planners take the lead, or be left behind? #UrbanPlanning #AI #FutureOfCities

There’s no reason to wait for the “next big breakthrough.” Planners can start today by asking: -How can AI support my work right now? -Who benefits, and who might be harmed? -How can AI reinforce our core values in urban planning?

The challenge isn’t learning to code or understanding neural networks. It’s changing our mindset: ❌ Fear → Curiosity ❌ Skepticism → Exploration AI isn’t a threat to human expertise, it’s a partner that can amplify it.

You don’t need to be a tech expert or coder to use AI. Today’s off-the-shelf tools are already powerful enough to help planners: 🔹 See hidden patterns 🔹 Challenge old assumptions 🔹 Reimagine how we engage communities The barrier isn’t technical, it’s cultural.

Urban planners should not be afraid of AI! AI isn’t here to replace planners, but it is transforming how we imagine, design, and govern our cities. 🏙️🤖 🧵 A thread on why planners must shift from fear to curiosity: Read my full article in Cities here: https://t.co/kPFIJcW4tb

We also identified distinct “emitter profiles” based on car access, job type & gender. 🧭Urban climate policy needs to move beyond the 15-minute city ideal. We need to plan for the full travel chain. #UrbanMobility #TransportEmissions #15MinuteCity #SustainableCities

🤚 In other words, improving the walkability of only residential areas is not enough (e.g., concepts like x-min cities). We’re missing a major opportunity to reduce emissions if we ignore the other places people visit: commercial centres, leisure hubs, and secondary destinations.

🚨 New paper out! 🚨 We tracked 587 workers and found that trip-level walkability and transit access matter much more for CO₂ emissions than home or work location alone. 🏡 Improving just residential walkability isn’t enough 📄 Open access in Cities: https://t.co/iqg60eYY0I

Have you ever found out after your GPS tracking study that someone had already collected similar data? Or struggled to find collaborators? We’ve been there. That’s why we created OpenGPS. Read more here: https://t.co/g8X5lkONNg

7/ If you want to get involved, give feedback, or add your study, reach out! 📬 Message me 📋 Feedback form in the prototype Let’s build a global, open, and reproducible future for GPS mobility research. #OpenGPS #HumanMobility #OpenScience #FAIRData #Geoprivacy

6/ OpenGPS is co-authored with: @jedalong, Urška Demšar, Katarzyna Sila-Nowicka, Vanessa Brum-Bastos, Jinhyung Lee & Hui Jeong (Hailyee) Ha. 📄 Read the paper: