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

81–90 of 543 posts

Re: Prism

#81

Post by engineer_22 »

MattDaEskimo wrote: post #27

What's the goal here? There was an idea of OpenAI charging commission or royalties on new discoveries. What kind of researcher wants to potentially lose, or get caught up in legal issues because of a free ChatGPT wrapper, or am I missing something?

> Prism is free to use, and anyone with a ChatGPT account can start writing immediately.

Maybe it's cynical, but how does the old saying go? If the service is free, you are the product.

Perhaps, the goal is to hoover up research before it goes public. Then they use it for training data. With enough training data they'll be able to rapidly identify breakthroughs and use that to pick stocks or send their agents to wrap up the IP or something.

Re: Prism

#82

Post by radioactivist »

Is anyone else having trouble using even some of the basic features? For example, I can open a comment, but it doesn't seem like there is any way to close them (I try clicking the checkmark and nothing happens). You also can't seem to edit the comments once typed.

Re: Prism

#83

Post by teaearlgraycold »

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.

The hand-drawn diagram to LaTeX is a little embarrassing. If you load up Prism and create your first blank project you can see the image. It looks like it's actually a LaTeX rendering of a diagram rendered with a hand-dawn style and then overlayed on a very clean image of a napkin. So you've proven that you can go from a rasterized LaTeX diagram back to equivalent LaTeX code. Interesting but probably will not hold up when it meets real world use cases.

Re: Prism

#84

Post by verdverm »

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.

It's all performance over practice at this point. Look to the current US administration as the barometer by which many are measuring their public perceptions

Re: Prism

#85

Post by utilize1808 »

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.

Better yet, make a "polymarket" for papers where people can bet on which paper can make it, and rely on "expertise arbitrage" to punish spams.

Re: Prism

#86

Post by Rperry2174 »

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…

This keeps repeating in different domains: we lower the cost of producing artifacts and the real bottleneck is evaluating them.

For developers, academics, editors, etc... in any review driven system the scarcity is around good human judgement not text volume. Ai doesn't remove that constraint and arguably puts more of a spotlight on the ability to separate the shit from the quality.

Unless review itself becomes cheaper or better, this just shifts work further downstream and disguising the change as "efficiency"

Re: Prism

#87

Post by lxe »

radioactivist wrote: post #82

Is anyone else having trouble using even some of the basic features? For example, I can open a comment, but it doesn't seem like there is any way to close them (I try clicking the checkmark and nothing happens). You also can't seem to edit the comments once typed.

Thanks for surfacing this. If you click to "tools" button to the left of "compile", you'll see a list of comments, and you can resolve them from there. We'll keep improving and fixing things that might be rough around the edges.

EDIT: Fixed :)

Re: Prism

#88

Post by maxkfranz »

markbao wrote: post #37

Not an academic, but I used LaTeX for years and it doesn’t feel like what future of publishing should use. It’s finicky and takes so much markup to do simple things. A lab manager once told me about a study that people who used MS Word to typeset were more productive, and I can see that…

Latex is good for equations. And Latex tools produce very nice PDFs, but I wouldn't want to write in Latex generally either.

The main feature that's important is collaborative editing (like online Word or Google Docs). The second one would be a good reference manager.

Re: Prism

#89

Post by renyicircle »

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.

It's as if it's marketed to the students who have been using ChatGPT for the last few years to pass courses and now need to throw together a bachelor's thesis. Bibliography and proper citation requirements are a pain.

Re: Prism

#90

Post by vitalnodo »

Rperry2174 wrote: post #86
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…

This keeps repeating in different domains: we lower the cost of producing artifacts and the real bottleneck is evaluating them. For developers, academics, editors, etc... in any review driven system the scarcity is around good human judgement not text volume. Ai doesn't remove that constraint and arguably puts more of a spotlight on the ability to separate the shit from the quality. Unless review itself becomes cheap…

This fits into the broader evolution of the visualization market. As data grows, visualization becomes as important as processing. This applies not only to applications, but also to relating texts through ideas close to transclusion in Ted Nelson’s Xanadu. [0]

In education, understanding is often best demonstrated not by restating text, but by presenting the same data in another representation and establishing the right analogies and isomorphisms, as in Explorable Explanations. [1]

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40295661

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22368323

Post reply on HN