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

91–100 of 105 posts

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

#91

Post by newswasboring »

swatcoder wrote: post #88
newswasboring wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-r…

It's not like everyone on HN is not aware of these issues. There is an article about this almost every day. It would be constructive feedback, in my view at least, if they actually showed what's wrong. Basically why can it not useful even if an expert person will look at it. Targeting arXiv gives us the opportunity to assume certain things about our users.

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

#92

Post by newswasboring »

almost wrote: post #90
newswasboring wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I didn't try to shut down the criticism, that's not remotely what I'm saying. But if all you have to say is LLM=bad then what are you actually saying?

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

#94

Post by m3kw9 »

dekken_ wrote: post #84
kurisufag wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you have used the summary function of Gpt, it can be out right wrong but sound very plausible. With the amount of disinformation out there people that are interested in science but wants it the easy way is could make things worse. Imagine the summarized states the result show that certain meds give good results but without the right statistic context, it could be just marginally good, or even not statistically significant to the trained reader. Now they pass it off and start validating their own biases

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

#95

Post by almost »

newswasboring wrote: post #92
almost wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I didn't try to shut down the criticism, that's not remotely what I'm saying. But if all you have to say is LLM=bad then what are you actually saying?

Well that’s a thing to say. Not what I actually said but absolutely a valid position. Everything has pros and cons and it’s absolutely valid to ask if the cons outweigh the pros. To deny that is just silly.

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

#96

Post by m3kw9 »

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…

If I were to suggest something it would be to wait for OpenAI to get their stuff together before creating a summarizing bot which uses a model it doesn’t own.

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

#97

Post by sorokod »

asabla wrote: post #8
goldemerald wrote: post #5

The example here is a bit worrying for the peer review process. I am not looking forward to my "peers" reviewing my paper by putting it through LLMs and blindly copy pasting the output. I can already imagine emailing the Area Chair and saying "While reviewer 2 is detailed, the questions show a severe lack of basic understanding. We believe the contents are AI generated." Then again, perhaps LLMs could simply be incor…

I like the way you flipped it around. I'm a big believer of using all these new AI services/programs as tools to enhance my workflows, not replacing them.

How would innacurate summary enhance your workflow?

Or same question in a different way, what sort of workflow would be enhanced by an innacurate summary?

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

#98

Post by sigmoid10 »

tmalsburg2 wrote: post #59
sigmoid10 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people cite these numbers as cynics or to dissuade others' optimism, but if you actually work in the field and know what it was like just 5 years ago, these numbers should be extremely worrying to everyone who's afraid of automation. Even that linked paper from 2021 is already outdated. We don't need another revolution, we just need maybe a dozen small to medium insights. The steps from GPT3 to 3.5 alone wer…

The training data contains tons of false information and the training objective is simply to reproduce that information. It's not at all surprising that these models fail to distinguish truth from falsehood, and no incremental change will change that. The problem is paradigmatic. And calling people cynics for pointing out the obvious and serious shortcomings of these models is poor form IMO.

The large corpus of text is only necessary to grasp the structure and nuance of language itself. Answering questions 1. in a friendly manner and 2. truthfully is a matter of fine-tuning as the latest developments around GPT3.5 clearly show. And with approaches like indexGPT the usage of external knowledge bases that can even be corrected later is already a thing, we just need this at scale and with the correct fine tuning. The tech is way further than those cynics realize.

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

#99

Post by sigmoid10 »

MagicMoonlight wrote: post #60
sigmoid10 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people cite these numbers as cynics or to dissuade others' optimism, but if you actually work in the field and know what it was like just 5 years ago, these numbers should be extremely worrying to everyone who's afraid of automation. Even that linked paper from 2021 is already outdated. We don't need another revolution, we just need maybe a dozen small to medium insights. The steps from GPT3 to 3.5 alone wer…

These models inherently cannot be truthful because there is no intelligence behind them that can have any sort of intent at all. It’s literally monkeys with typewriters pressing keys randomly. Until we get new models which have true understanding, they will never be truly useful.

This gets repeated by the cynics every time like prayer, but it shows a very poor understanding of the current state of research.

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

#100

Post by chordalkeyboard »

sigmoid10 wrote: post #99
MagicMoonlight wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These models inherently cannot be truthful because there is no intelligence behind them that can have any sort of intent at all. It’s literally monkeys with typewriters pressing keys randomly. Until we get new models which have true understanding, they will never be truly useful.

This gets repeated by the cynics every time like prayer, but it shows a very poor understanding of the current state of research.

Can you explain or share what research is being done on getting machines to understand the meaning and intent of the data and prompts they are given?
Post reply on HN