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

Prism

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 543 posts

Re: Prism

#51

Post by jumploops »

I’ve been “testing” LLM willingness to explore novel ideas/hypotheses for a few random topics[0].

The earlier LLMs were interesting, in that their sycophantic nature eagerly agreed, often lacking criticality.

After reducing said sycophancy, I’ve found that certain LLMs are much more unwilling (especially the reasoning models) to move past the “known” science[1].

I’m curious to see how/if we can strike the right balance with an LLM focused on scientific exploration.

[0]Sediment lubrication due to organic material in specific subduction zones, potential algorithmic basis for colony collapse disorder, potential to evolve anthropomorphic kiwis, etc.

[1]Caveat, it’s very easy for me to tell when an LLM is “off-the-rails” on a topic I know a lot about, much less so, and much more dangerous, for these “tests” where I’m certainly no expert.

Re: Prism

#52

Post by olivia-banks »

ai_critic wrote: post #41

Anybody else notice that half the video was just finding papers to decorate the bibliography with? Not like "find me more papers I should read and consider", but "find papers that are relevant that I should cite--okay, just add those". This is all pageantry.

I've noticed this pattern, and it really drives me nuts. You should really be doing a comprehensive literature review before starting any sort of review or research paper.

We removed the authorship of a a former co-author on a paper I'm on because his workflow was essentially this--with AI generated text--and a not-insignificant amount of straight-up plagiarism.

Re: Prism

#53

Post by olivia-banks »

vessenes wrote: post #31
vitalnodo wrote: post #30

With a tool like this, you could imagine an end-to-end service for restoring and modernizing old scientific books and papers: digitization, cleanup, LaTeX reformatting, collaborative or volunteer-driven workflows, OCR (like Mathpix), and side-by-side comparison with the original. That would be useful.

Don’t forget replication!

I'm curious how you think AI would aide in this.

Re: Prism

#54

Post by throwaway85825 »

bloppe wrote: post #47
JBorrow wrote: post #32

From my perspective as a journal editor and a reviewer these kinds of tools cause many more problems than they actually solve. They make the 'barrier to entry' for submitting vibed semi-plausible journal articles much lower, which I understand some may see as a benefit. The drawback is that scientific editors and reviewers provide those services for free, as a community benefit. One example was a submission their und…

I wonder if there's a way to tax the frivolous submissions. There could be a submission fee that would be fully reimbursed iff the submission is actually accepted for publication. If you're confident in your paper, you can think of it as a deposit. If you're spamming journals, you're just going to pay for the wasted time. Maybe you get reimbursed for half as long as there are no obvious hallucinations.

Pay to publish journals already exist.

Re: Prism

#55

Post by bloppe »

throwaway85825 wrote: post #54
bloppe wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if there's a way to tax the frivolous submissions. There could be a submission fee that would be fully reimbursed iff the submission is actually accepted for publication. If you're confident in your paper, you can think of it as a deposit. If you're spamming journals, you're just going to pay for the wasted time. Maybe you get reimbursed for half as long as there are no obvious hallucinations.

Pay to publish journals already exist.

This is sorta the opposite of pay to publish. It's pay to be rejected.

Re: Prism

#56

Post by olivia-banks »

throwaway85825 wrote: post #54
bloppe wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if there's a way to tax the frivolous submissions. There could be a submission fee that would be fully reimbursed iff the submission is actually accepted for publication. If you're confident in your paper, you can think of it as a deposit. If you're spamming journals, you're just going to pay for the wasted time. Maybe you get reimbursed for half as long as there are no obvious hallucinations.

Pay to publish journals already exist.

I would think it would act more like a security deposit, and you'd get back 100%, no profit for the journal (at least in that respect).

Re: Prism

#57

Post by s0rce »

bloppe wrote: post #47
JBorrow wrote: post #32

From my perspective as a journal editor and a reviewer these kinds of tools cause many more problems than they actually solve. They make the 'barrier to entry' for submitting vibed semi-plausible journal articles much lower, which I understand some may see as a benefit. The drawback is that scientific editors and reviewers provide those services for free, as a community benefit. One example was a submission their und…

I wonder if there's a way to tax the frivolous submissions. There could be a submission fee that would be fully reimbursed iff the submission is actually accepted for publication. If you're confident in your paper, you can think of it as a deposit. If you're spamming journals, you're just going to pay for the wasted time. Maybe you get reimbursed for half as long as there are no obvious hallucinations.

That would be tricky, I often submitted to multiple high impact journals going down the list until someone accepted it. You try to ballpark where you can go but it can be worth aiming high. Maybe this isn't a problem and there should be payment for the efforts to screen the paper but then I would expect the reviewers to be paid for their time.

Re: Prism

#59

Post by blitzar »

postalcoder wrote: post #4

Very unfortunately named. OpenAI probably (and likely correctly) estimated that 13 years is enough time after the Snowden leaks to use "prism" for a product but, for me, the word is permanently tainted.

Guessing that Ai came up with the name based on the description of the product.

Perhaps, like the original PRISM programme, behind the door is a massive data harvesting operation.

Re: Prism

#60

Post by JBorrow »

bloppe wrote: post #47
JBorrow wrote: post #32

From my perspective as a journal editor and a reviewer these kinds of tools cause many more problems than they actually solve. They make the 'barrier to entry' for submitting vibed semi-plausible journal articles much lower, which I understand some may see as a benefit. The drawback is that scientific editors and reviewers provide those services for free, as a community benefit. One example was a submission their und…

I wonder if there's a way to tax the frivolous submissions. There could be a submission fee that would be fully reimbursed iff the submission is actually accepted for publication. If you're confident in your paper, you can think of it as a deposit. If you're spamming journals, you're just going to pay for the wasted time. Maybe you get reimbursed for half as long as there are no obvious hallucinations.

The journal that I'm an editor for is 'diamond open access', which means we charge no submission fees and no publication fees, and publish open access. This model is really important in allowing legitimate submissions from a wide range of contributors (e.g. PhD students in countries with low levels of science funding). Publishing in a traditional journal usually costs around $3000.
Post reply on HN