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

181–190 of 543 posts

Re: Prism

#181

Post by jll29 »

Imustaskforhelp wrote: post #174
SimianSci wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Altman's Law: 99% of all content is slop I can get behind this. This assumes a tool will need to be made to help determine the 1% that isn't slop. At which point I assume we will have reinvented web search once more. Has anyone looked at reviving PageRank?

I mean Kagi is probably the PageRank revival we are talking about. I have heard from people here that Kagi can help remove slop from searches so I guess yeah. Although I guess I am DDG user and I love using DDG as well because its free as well but I can see how for some price can be a non issue and they might like kagi more. So Kagi / DDG (Duckduckgo) yeah.

Does anyone have kept an eye of who uses what back-end?

DDG used to be meta-search on top of Yahoo, which doesn't exist anymore. What do Gabriel and co-workers use now?

Re: Prism

#182

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Prism

#183

Post by chairhairair »

vicapow wrote: post #43
khalic wrote: post #40

All your papers are belong to us

Users have full control over whether their data is used to help improve our models

Never trust Sam Altman.

Even if yall don’t train off it he’ll find some other way.

“In one example, [Friar] pointed to drug discovery: if a pharma partner used OpenAI technology to help develop a breakthrough medicine, [OpenAI] could take a licensed portion of the drug's sales”

https://www.businessinsider.com/openai-cfo-sarah-friar-futur...

Re: Prism

#185

Post by toomuchtodo »

SchemaLoad wrote: post #143
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…

GenAI largely seems like a DDoS on free resources. The effort to review this stuff is now massively more than the effort to "create" it, so really what is the point of even submitting it, the reviewer could have generated it themself. Seeing it in software development where coworkers are submitting massive PRs they generated but hardly read or tested. Shifting the real work to the PR review. I'm not sure what the fin…

AI slop security reports submitted to curl - https://gist.github.com/bagder/07f7581f6e3d78ef37dfbfc81fd1d...

HN Search: curl AI slop - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

Re: Prism

#186

Post by jll29 »

noitpmeder wrote: post #65
s0rce wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I mean your methodology also sounds suspect. You're just going down a list until it sticks. You don't care where it ends up (I'm sure within reason) just as long as it is accepted and published somewhere (again, within reason).

It's standard practice, nothing suspect about their approach - and you won't go lower and lower and lower still because at some point you'll be tired of re-formatting, or a doctoral candidate's funding will be used up, or the topic has "expired" (= is overtaken by reality/competition).

Re: Prism

#187

Post by chaosprint »

As a researcher who has to use LaTeX, I used to use Overleaf, but lately I've been configuring it locally in VS Code. The configuration process on Mac is very simple. Considering there are so many free LLMs available now, I still won't subscribe to ChatGPT.

Re: Prism

#189

Post by Spivak »

SchemaLoad wrote: post #143
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…

GenAI largely seems like a DDoS on free resources. The effort to review this stuff is now massively more than the effort to "create" it, so really what is the point of even submitting it, the reviewer could have generated it themself. Seeing it in software development where coworkers are submitting massive PRs they generated but hardly read or tested. Shifting the real work to the PR review. I'm not sure what the fin…

In some ways it might be a good thing that shorthand signals of quality are being destroyed because it forces all of us to meaningfully engage with the work. No more LGTM +1 when every PR looks good.

Re: Prism

#190

Post by jll29 »

ezst wrote: post #132
petcat wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There could be a submission fee that would be fully reimbursed if the submission is actually accepted for publication. While well-intentioned, I think this is just gate-keeping. There are mountains of research that result in nothing interesting whatsoever (aside from learning about what doesn't work). And all of that is still valuable knowledge!

Sure, but now we can't even assume that such research is submitted in good faith anymore. There just seems to be no perfect solution. Maybe something like a "hierarchy/DAG? of trusted-peers", where groups like universities certify the relevance and correctness of papers by attaching their name and a global reputation score to it. When it's found that the paper is "undesirable" and doesn't pass a subsequent review, th…

You have some good ideas there, it's all about incentives and about public reputation.

But it should also fair. I once caught a team at a small Indian branch of a very large three letter US corporation violating the "no double submission" rule of two conferences: they submitted the same paper to two conferences, both naturally landed in my reviewer inbox, for a topic I am one of the experts in.

But all the other employees should not be penalized by the violations of 3 researchers.

Post reply on HN