Sorry, but a new prompt for GPT-4 is not a paper
1–10 of 193 posts
Re: Sorry, but a new prompt for GPT-4 is not a paper
#2Reminds me of what a real programmer is: https://sac.edu/AcademicProgs/Business/ComputerScience/Pages...
Re: Sorry, but a new prompt for GPT-4 is not a paper
#3Real science is reserved for those with real expertise! As the self-anointed gatekeeper of real science I decree that other peoples’ work fails to meet the minimum standard I have set for real science! Mind you not the work other actors in the scientific community publish and accept among their peers - they are not real scientists and their work is trivial. For shame!
Re: Sorry, but a new prompt for GPT-4 is not a paper
#4Reminds me of what a real programmer is: https://sac.edu/AcademicProgs/Business/ComputerScience/Pages...
[deleted]
Re: Sorry, but a new prompt for GPT-4 is not a paper
#5Attacking the participants in a systemic shift is 100% useless as it doesn't target the culprit.
In programming we have a similar phenomenon, that StackOverflow-driven (and I guess now GPT-driven) juniors have overtaken the industry and displaced serious talent. Because sufficient amounts of quantity always beats quality, even if the end result is inferior, this is caused by market dynamics, which operate on much cruder parameters than the sophisticated analysis of an individual noticing everything around them becoming "enshittified".
SO-driven juniors are cheap, plentiful, and easily replaceable. And a business that values less expense and less risk therefore prefers them, because it has no way to measure the quality of the final product with simple metrics.
The same mechanism is driving AI replacing our jobs currently, the avalanche of garbage papers by academics. This is entropy for you. We see it everywhere in modern society down to the food we eat. Quality goes away, replaced by cheap to produce and long shelf life.
If we don't fundamentally alter what the system sees as ACCEPTABLE, and VALUABLE, this process will inevitably continue until our world is completely unrecognizable. And to fundamentally alter the system, we need an impulse that aligns us as a society, startles us into action, all together (or at least significant majority of us). But it seems we're currently in "slowly boiled frog mode".
Re: Sorry, but a new prompt for GPT-4 is not a paper
#6It depends I guess.
If you solve a problem that had been around for a while and LLMs offer a new way of approaching it, then it can definitely become a paper.
Of cause one has to verify in sophisticated experiments, that this approach is stable.
Re: Sorry, but a new prompt for GPT-4 is not a paper
#7If you do enough measurements on that new prompt then I don't see why this shouldn't be a paper. People overestimate the value of "grand developments", and underestimate the value of actually knowing - in this case actually knowing how well something works, even if it is as simple as a prompt.
Compare with drug trials: Adderall only differs from regular amphetamine in the relative concentration of enantiomers, and the entire value of the drug is in the measurements.
Re: Sorry, but a new prompt for GPT-4 is not a paper
#8Real science is reserved for those with real expertise! As the self-anointed gatekeeper of real science I decree that other peoples’ work fails to meet the minimum standard I have set for real science! Mind you not the work other actors in the scientific community publish and accept among their peers - they are not real scientists and their work is trivial. For shame!
Strongly disagree. I do think trivial work is not paper-worthy and it would be more beneficial not to publish such work, as it mostly a waste of time for the peer reviewing it and the readers who will gain nothing from reading it. It's no lie that most publish for the sake of publishing and this post just calls it out for what it is.
Re: Sorry, but a new prompt for GPT-4 is not a paper
#9How to add prompt knowledge into research? By having papers about it.
Shouldn't be the tooling around it good enough that a few prompt papers don't overload the system?
Re: Sorry, but a new prompt for GPT-4 is not a paper
#10Real science is reserved for those with real expertise! As the self-anointed gatekeeper of real science I decree that other peoples’ work fails to meet the minimum standard I have set for real science! Mind you not the work other actors in the scientific community publish and accept among their peers - they are not real scientists and their work is trivial. For shame!
Strongly disagree. I do think trivial work is not paper-worthy and it would be more beneficial not to publish such work, as it mostly a waste of time for the peer reviewing it and the readers who will gain nothing from reading it. It's no lie that most publish for the sake of publishing and this post just calls it out for what it is.
Trivial means different things to different people. I’m not really a fan of LLM hype but it seems to me a valid practice of scientific discovery to evaluate the use and optimization of such models.