61–70 of 121 posts
Someone posts on X, "These are Ilya’s 30 papers", gives no source, doesn't say where he got it from, and isn't connected to either Ilya or Carmack (Ilya gave him the list). Then someone vibe codes a barely usable website based on that, and it lands on the HN front page? Is this correct?
Someone posts on X, "These are Ilya’s 30 papers", gives no source, doesn't say where he got it from, and isn't connected to either Ilya or Carmack (Ilya gave him the list). Then someone vibe codes a barely usable website based on that, and it lands on the HN front page? Is this correct?
First year CS student excited to learn about a thing puts together a small website of academic papers, posts it to HN to share with others. Then someone makes a shitty comment. Is that correct?
Author here. First year CS student at Trinity College Dublin. I Built this because when I was getting into reading research papers I ended up burning a ton of my Claude usage asking questions other people have probably already asked. The website is just a side project and definitely a WIP. Happy to answer questions or take PRs on GitHub.
I think it'd be interesting to hear what you think the goal of the site is. Is it just rehosting the list, plus a reformatted copy of the papers? I was hoping you'd have at least annotated them with what you'd learned?
why do you care? this is a disingenuous question.
https://x.com/keshavchan/status/1787861946173186062
In my opinion, whether it was actually by Ilya or not is not worthy of debate. Many of them are widely recognized for being good pedagogical resources (e.g. annotated transformer, unreasonable effectiveness of RNNs, understanding LSTM networks), and others are landmark papers which anyone interested in the field would benefit from reading:
- Krizhevsky et al. (2012) introduced AlexNet
- Bahdanau et al. (2014) introduced attention
- He et al. (2015) introduced ResNet
- Vaswani et al. (2017) introduced the Transformer
Other papers are more specialized. Of them, I think Kaplan et al. (2020) by OpenAI is probably most important.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First year CS student excited to learn about a thing puts together a small website of academic papers, posts it to HN to share with others. Then someone makes a shitty comment. Is that correct?
100% correct (anyone on hn for longer than 3 months will recognize that this is exactly the culture here).
Someone posts on X, "These are Ilya’s 30 papers", gives no source, doesn't say where he got it from, and isn't connected to either Ilya or Carmack (Ilya gave him the list). Then someone vibe codes a barely usable website based on that, and it lands on the HN front page? Is this correct?
Compiled resources for nerds are catnip. Hit that bookmark/upvote button to never get to it :)
Hey guys, I really appreciate all of the attention this post has received. I honestly thought it was going to be just a small project to help some of my friends get into reading research papers. A large number of people complained about how intense some of the backgrounds/animations were (I might have been a bit too focused on making something that looked cool over usability). In response I have added toggles for bot…
I wish this were organized according to suggested/logical reading order. For example, the paper introducing the attention mechanism probably ought to precede "attention is all you need".
in case folks are interested, i wrote up a ~layman's review of each paper over the course of two years a while back. Several of those reviews ended up doing reasonably well on hn. Full analysis of the ~23 docs that were papers and not massive books
https://12gramsofcarbon.com/p/ilyas-30-papers-to-carmack-tab...