Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ArxivGPT: Chrome extension that summarizes arxived research papers using ChatGPT

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 105 posts

Re: ArxivGPT: Chrome extension that summarizes arxived research papers using ChatGPT

#81

Post by rat9988 »

newswasboring wrote: post #80
m3kw9 wrote: post #72

This is dangerous because people that has no knowledge of the science would blindly trust whatever it summarizes. There is no way to verify, an example is if you ask to summarize a book that you have understanding of the subject, at least you can sense some bs or open up the book at verify a few points. Here you would be at GPT3 mercy

I'm so tired of all discussions on LLMs starting with "this is dangerous" or forms of this. First because at some point this discourages people from even attempting cool things with LLMs and second because it really stalls the discussion. We are all aware that there is a hallucination issue in LLMs, so what do we do about this? What's your proposal? If it's just "don't do it", I don't think that's useful. I think if…

While I agree with the sentiment, I don't think there is a "true" spirit of HN. His sentiment as much as yours are in its spirit.

Re: ArxivGPT: Chrome extension that summarizes arxived research papers using ChatGPT

#82

Post by almost »

newswasboring wrote: post #80
m3kw9 wrote: post #72

This is dangerous because people that has no knowledge of the science would blindly trust whatever it summarizes. There is no way to verify, an example is if you ask to summarize a book that you have understanding of the subject, at least you can sense some bs or open up the book at verify a few points. Here you would be at GPT3 mercy

I'm so tired of all discussions on LLMs starting with "this is dangerous" or forms of this. First because at some point this discourages people from even attempting cool things with LLMs and second because it really stalls the discussion. We are all aware that there is a hallucination issue in LLMs, so what do we do about this? What's your proposal? If it's just "don't do it", I don't think that's useful. I think if…

I feel the same way about “chainsaw juggling for babies” classes at daycare centres. People are so quick to jump to “that’s dangerously” or “ouch you cut off my arm” rather than engaging with the subject and suggesting ways the babies can be better taught to not decapitate their carers.

Re: ArxivGPT: Chrome extension that summarizes arxived research papers using ChatGPT

#83

Post by bilsbie »

m3kw9 wrote: post #72

This is dangerous because people that has no knowledge of the science would blindly trust whatever it summarizes. There is no way to verify, an example is if you ask to summarize a book that you have understanding of the subject, at least you can sense some bs or open up the book at verify a few points. Here you would be at GPT3 mercy

This already happens when the popular press reports on papers. Can’t be any worse.

Re: ArxivGPT: Chrome extension that summarizes arxived research papers using ChatGPT

#84

Post by dekken_ »

kurisufag wrote: post #77
dekken_ wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is dangerous because people that has no knowledge of the science would blindly trust whatever it summarizes. This says more about you than the hypothetical "people" you are talking about.

I don't think so. The average person already thinks (Chat)GPT is an all-knowing AGI homework-solver, and the problem only worsens if you add the airs of "science" to the situation.

I think we're in uncharted waters to some extent and should have some restraint about predictions.

Re: ArxivGPT: Chrome extension that summarizes arxived research papers using ChatGPT

#85

Post by newswasboring »

almost wrote: post #82
newswasboring wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm so tired of all discussions on LLMs starting with "this is dangerous" or forms of this. First because at some point this discourages people from even attempting cool things with LLMs and second because it really stalls the discussion. We are all aware that there is a hallucination issue in LLMs, so what do we do about this? What's your proposal? If it's just "don't do it", I don't think that's useful. I think if…

I feel the same way about “chainsaw juggling for babies” classes at daycare centres. People are so quick to jump to “that’s dangerously” or “ouch you cut off my arm” rather than engaging with the subject and suggesting ways the babies can be better taught to not decapitate their carers.

This is such a false equivalence. We are talking here about adults who want to build something cool. If we are going to define to scope of everything as "useful for everyone and 100% safe from the beginning" I think we'll get nothing done. If you think the risk here is equivalent, I really don't know what to say to you.

Re: ArxivGPT: Chrome extension that summarizes arxived research papers using ChatGPT

#86

Post by newswasboring »

rat9988 wrote: post #81
newswasboring wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm so tired of all discussions on LLMs starting with "this is dangerous" or forms of this. First because at some point this discourages people from even attempting cool things with LLMs and second because it really stalls the discussion. We are all aware that there is a hallucination issue in LLMs, so what do we do about this? What's your proposal? If it's just "don't do it", I don't think that's useful. I think if…

While I agree with the sentiment, I don't think there is a "true" spirit of HN. His sentiment as much as yours are in its spirit.

I don't know man, maybe I'm wrong. I've been using HN for over a decade now, I've found constructive criticism to be a huge part of the positive culture here. It can of course be selection bias as I try to read more of that stuff and collapse a thread as soon as it gets into less constructive direction.

But on the other hand, this is what the guidelines say

> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.

I don't think these type of comments teach us anything. But these are guidelines and not rules for a reason.

Re: ArxivGPT: Chrome extension that summarizes arxived research papers using ChatGPT

#87

Post by swatcoder »

newswasboring wrote: post #80
m3kw9 wrote: post #72

This is dangerous because people that has no knowledge of the science would blindly trust whatever it summarizes. There is no way to verify, an example is if you ask to summarize a book that you have understanding of the subject, at least you can sense some bs or open up the book at verify a few points. Here you would be at GPT3 mercy

I'm so tired of all discussions on LLMs starting with "this is dangerous" or forms of this. First because at some point this discourages people from even attempting cool things with LLMs and second because it really stalls the discussion. We are all aware that there is a hallucination issue in LLMs, so what do we do about this? What's your proposal? If it's just "don't do it", I don't think that's useful. I think if…

Some of us respond to uses that align with the technology’s strengths with excitement and encouragement, and to uses that rely on its weaknesses with criticism and warning.

That seems useful, prudent, and completely in line with the spirit if a community like HN.

There’s no more reason that every critique should come with a “proposal” than that every cheer should come with some kind of admonition. As a community, multiple points of view are expressed and developed simultaneously.

Of course, some of points of view might personally frustrate you or leave you feeling like you don’t know how to respond to them. But is that so bad? Does it need to be squelched just because you don’t enjoy it?

Re: ArxivGPT: Chrome extension that summarizes arxived research papers using ChatGPT

#88

Post by swatcoder »

newswasboring wrote: post #86
rat9988 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree with the sentiment, I don't think there is a "true" spirit of HN. His sentiment as much as yours are in its spirit.

I don't know man, maybe I'm wrong. I've been using HN for over a decade now, I've found constructive criticism to be a huge part of the positive culture here. It can of course be selection bias as I try to read more of that stuff and collapse a thread as soon as it gets into less constructive direction. But on the other hand, this is what the guidelines say > Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other…

> I don't think these type of comments teach us anything.

Comments like the one at the root of this thread teach people that the current/approximate generation of LLM’s are poorly suited for certain kinds of tasks and remind us that many people don’t yet seem to understand what their systemic limitations are.

LLM’s are statistical models over their training data and aim responses mostly towards the most dense, data-rich, and redundant centers of their corpus. Summarizing novel, esoteric or or expert material is something they’re poorly suited for because it inherently has poor representation in that data.

Scoping is very constructive feedback.

Re: ArxivGPT: Chrome extension that summarizes arxived research papers using ChatGPT

#89

Post by newswasboring »

swatcoder wrote: post #87
newswasboring wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm so tired of all discussions on LLMs starting with "this is dangerous" or forms of this. First because at some point this discourages people from even attempting cool things with LLMs and second because it really stalls the discussion. We are all aware that there is a hallucination issue in LLMs, so what do we do about this? What's your proposal? If it's just "don't do it", I don't think that's useful. I think if…

Some of us respond to uses that align with the technology’s strengths with excitement and encouragement, and to uses that rely on its weaknesses with criticism and warning. That seems useful, prudent, and completely in line with the spirit if a community like HN. There’s no more reason that every critique should come with a “proposal” than that every cheer should come with some kind of admonition. As a community, mul…

I think you hit the nail on the head, it does frustrate me. Not only because it's repeated often, but also because it's applied equally everywhere. Look at this project for example. It's an extension for arXiv, a pre print repository for cutting edge research, do we really need to keep the entirety of humanity in mind while making this? Because that's what the original comment was saying. The way I see it, arXiv is mostly looked at by experts who would know when something is completely off, and will probably look into things further than reading the GPT summary. If I was still actively doing research and hitting the site every day, this would have immensely streamlined my flow (maybe with a few tweaks to the prompt to emphasize certain sections which I'm usually more interested in).

But that's not how any of this is discussed. That's where my scope comment comes from, the scope of every project cannot be "for everyone and 100% safe from the beginning". In this way there is no encouragement to discuss/make better things, just discouragement. I, personally, hate this.

Re: ArxivGPT: Chrome extension that summarizes arxived research papers using ChatGPT

#90

Post by almost »

newswasboring wrote: post #85
almost wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel the same way about “chainsaw juggling for babies” classes at daycare centres. People are so quick to jump to “that’s dangerously” or “ouch you cut off my arm” rather than engaging with the subject and suggesting ways the babies can be better taught to not decapitate their carers.

This is such a false equivalence. We are talking here about adults who want to build something cool. If we are going to define to scope of everything as "useful for everyone and 100% safe from the beginning" I think we'll get nothing done. If you think the risk here is equivalent, I really don't know what to say to you.

That is an opinion that you're absolutely entitled to have.

My own opinion is that the cats out of the bag so whatever's going to happen is going to happen wrt LLMs. But trying to shut down all criticism of a new thing just because you think it's cool is itself not cool.

And those little tots sure do look cute spinning the 'saws right?

Post reply on HN