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

ArXiv's Next Chapter

blog.arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 107 posts

Re: ArXiv's Next Chapter

#41

Post by khurs »

nok22kon wrote: post #8
jltsiren wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be a trap. It's healthier for a non-profit to have many small funders than a few large ones.

exactly, the only reason Mozilla exists today is as a legal shield against an anti-browser monopoly suit against Google. that's the product they sell, and Google is paying hundreds of millions per year for this valuable service

I thought google pay Mozilla so they don't set the default search engine to something else (they same way Google pay Apple for Safari) and so Google continues to dominate and makes money of ads.

Re: ArXiv's Next Chapter

#42

Post by embedding-shape »

modeless wrote: post #29
m-hodges wrote: post #24

I always struggle to figure out what role arXiv should play in my information diet. On the one hand I support Open Access research. On the other hand, peer review is vital, and a substantial quantity of “papers” on arXiv are just blog posts in a LaTeX trench coat.

Do people browse arxiv or monitor new posts like reddit or something? I only visit when I encounter a link to it or when I search for a specific paper.

I use the RSS feeds to watch for papers mentioning terms I'm curious about, do a casual skim for anything interesting and maybe end up finding a paper per month or two that are useful to read more carefully. Lots of chaff for sure, but if you have some core interests it's quite useful.

Re: ArXiv's Next Chapter

#43

Post by replygirl »

augment_me wrote: post #39
m-hodges wrote: post #24

I always struggle to figure out what role arXiv should play in my information diet. On the one hand I support Open Access research. On the other hand, peer review is vital, and a substantial quantity of “papers” on arXiv are just blog posts in a LaTeX trench coat.

Peer review WAS vital for a long time. Maybe the world looks different now, maybe LLMs can find value in things better than humans. When you make an assumption it's good to think about why you do so, in this case it seems to be for historical reasons.

likewise, taking a wrecking ball to systems refined over centuries should come with some burden of proof for the positive claim that a tool can replace an institution. most times this has happened before, we've had to strengthen credentialing requirements to stop people from dying

Re: ArXiv's Next Chapter

#44

Post by vlovich123 »

replygirl wrote: post #43
augment_me wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Peer review WAS vital for a long time. Maybe the world looks different now, maybe LLMs can find value in things better than humans. When you make an assumption it's good to think about why you do so, in this case it seems to be for historical reasons.

likewise, taking a wrecking ball to systems refined over centuries should come with some burden of proof for the positive claim that a tool can replace an institution. most times this has happened before, we've had to strengthen credentialing requirements to stop people from dying

The burden of proof is on peer review not the other way around. Peer review is a fairly modern invention post WWII. Prior to that “peer review” looked very different.

Re: ArXiv's Next Chapter

#45

Post by replygirl »

vlovich123 wrote: post #44
replygirl wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

likewise, taking a wrecking ball to systems refined over centuries should come with some burden of proof for the positive claim that a tool can replace an institution. most times this has happened before, we've had to strengthen credentialing requirements to stop people from dying

The burden of proof is on peer review not the other way around. Peer review is a fairly modern invention post WWII. Prior to that “peer review” looked very different.

i'm saying all positive claims need to be justified, not that priors are exempt. there is one claim with a vast body of evidence supporting it, and a competing claim that must meet the same standard. the world is not so magically different now that we can't look at software engineering and computer science the same way we look at real (credentialist, regulated) science and engineering disciplines. really all i was implying is "peer review WAS vital" is jumping the gun

Re: ArXiv's Next Chapter

#46

Post by kmaitreys »

modeless wrote: post #29
m-hodges wrote: post #24

I always struggle to figure out what role arXiv should play in my information diet. On the one hand I support Open Access research. On the other hand, peer review is vital, and a substantial quantity of “papers” on arXiv are just blog posts in a LaTeX trench coat.

Do people browse arxiv or monitor new posts like reddit or something? I only visit when I encounter a link to it or when I search for a specific paper.

It depends on the kind of people. Most normal people don't do that, it's not a reddit-like platform after all.

But most researchers and grad students (like me) often subscribe to daily mailing list of the papers dropping that day from their particular field. Having a cursory read at the paper titles and then opening the papers further relevant to you is a morning ritual for many.

Re: ArXiv's Next Chapter

#47

Post by evanb »

modeless wrote: post #29
m-hodges wrote: post #24

I always struggle to figure out what role arXiv should play in my information diet. On the one hand I support Open Access research. On the other hand, peer review is vital, and a substantial quantity of “papers” on arXiv are just blog posts in a LaTeX trench coat.

Do people browse arxiv or monitor new posts like reddit or something? I only visit when I encounter a link to it or when I search for a specific paper.

I’m RSS-subscribed to a few sections relevant to my research.

Re: ArXiv's Next Chapter

#48

Post by Ariarule »

modeless wrote: post #29
m-hodges wrote: post #24

I always struggle to figure out what role arXiv should play in my information diet. On the one hand I support Open Access research. On the other hand, peer review is vital, and a substantial quantity of “papers” on arXiv are just blog posts in a LaTeX trench coat.

Do people browse arxiv or monitor new posts like reddit or something? I only visit when I encounter a link to it or when I search for a specific paper.

Yes, people do that. Karpathy made a utility to monitor it better years ago: https://github.com/karpathy/arxiv-sanity-preserver

Re: ArXiv's Next Chapter

#49

Post by poslathian »

m-hodges wrote: post #24

I always struggle to figure out what role arXiv should play in my information diet. On the one hand I support Open Access research. On the other hand, peer review is vital, and a substantial quantity of “papers” on arXiv are just blog posts in a LaTeX trench coat.

The bibliography is more important, imo, than the peer review. I get the most use of arxiv surfing references and citations.

Re: ArXiv's Next Chapter

#50

Post by alphabeta3r56 »

modeless wrote: post #29
m-hodges wrote: post #24

I always struggle to figure out what role arXiv should play in my information diet. On the one hand I support Open Access research. On the other hand, peer review is vital, and a substantial quantity of “papers” on arXiv are just blog posts in a LaTeX trench coat.

Do people browse arxiv or monitor new posts like reddit or something? I only visit when I encounter a link to it or when I search for a specific paper.

RSSFeed yes
Post reply on HN