Hmmmm I wonder why, so interesting
AI's top startups are barely publishing their research
161–170 of 341 posts
Re: AI's top startups are barely publishing their research
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's why we should enforce copyleft
That has nothing to do with anything. If you publish a copyleft paper, that doesn't compel someone who makes a product based on your paper to publish more papers.
The GNU RPL (research public license), a viral knowledge license. By reading this paper you are legally obligated to openly publish all vaguely related future research that you perform.
Re: AI's top startups are barely publishing their research
#163I can’t speak for other startups, but I applied to the most recent YC batch with my idea for making AI proactive instead of reactive, and pre-being selected I’ve published a paper on recursive self-improvement mapped to the Epoch AI data. I contacted a professor from a university in the UK and he responded since he was working on similar work, then asked me if I wanted to meet with him. We talked for about an hour si…
Yes! And, whether it stems from research or not, putting yourself out there and talking to other people is one of the most fundamentally important things you can do for your career and your personal development as a human being.
Re: AI's top startups are barely publishing their research
#164I can’t speak for other startups, but I applied to the most recent YC batch with my idea for making AI proactive instead of reactive, and pre-being selected I’ve published a paper on recursive self-improvement mapped to the Epoch AI data. I contacted a professor from a university in the UK and he responded since he was working on similar work, then asked me if I wanted to meet with him. We talked for about an hour si…
That's also a reason the big labs stopped. Publishing is most valuable to people who have no other way to get the attention of smart strangers. Once you can hire nearly anyone and everyone already returns your calls, the main remaining effect of publishing is to tell your competitors which things worked. This is what happens to every field as it turns from a science into an industry. Chemists published freely until d…
> Chemists published freely until dyes started being worth money
Notably this is exactly what patents are intended to combat. And while US IP law is clearly very broken it does at least largely accomplish this stated goal. Much (but certainly not all) industrial chemistry has made it into the academic literature.
Not that the same logic necessarily applies to AI research (ie algorithms aka math and their implementations). And I'm actually happy about that because the cost of doing the research is so much lower. There's a long list of reasons that the average person living in a residential area can't do industrial chemistry as a hobby.
To your dye example, yttrium indium manganese blue was the first commercially viable inorganic blue pigment discovered in ~200 years, is the only known environmentally safe one, and was openly published in the literature. It's also under an exclusive license. (TBF though unless the chemical is unusually difficult to synthesize not publishing would be rather pointless in this day and age given the utterly absurd capabilities of modern analytical techniques.)
Re: AI's top startups are barely publishing their research
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That and avoiding openAI and Anthropic copying our results and leaving us with nothing to show for six months of work. Isn't the POINT of publishing research because you want others to copy it?
Anthropic and OpenAI have proven themselves to be aspiring monopolists through their positions and actions. Why would you want to share your research with them?
[deleted]
Re: AI's top startups are barely publishing their research
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
That has nothing to do with anything. If you publish a copyleft paper, that doesn't compel someone who makes a product based on your paper to publish more papers.
The GNU RPL (research public license), a viral knowledge license. By reading this paper you are legally obligated to openly publish all vaguely related future research that you perform.
There's already an RPL, incidentally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_Public_License
Your RPL wouldn't be enforceable. Copyright doesn't deal with abstract ideas passing through people's minds. Even the GPL is kind of in a gray area because the virality feature and its definition of "derivative work" have never been tested in court, to my knowledge. Maybe under contract law, no idea. If nothing else, I'd love to hear a verdict.
Re: AI's top startups are barely publishing their research
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
> An example, a friend just emailed me asking to meet for at 1pm but I have class at 1:30, so a proactive AI would see that conflict and send me a notification about it, asking if the proposed email it drafted works, then I press send. I don't mean to downplay your work, but I think you should come up with a better example use case. Automating away interactions with friends is pretty much the last thing I want AI to…
Good point, another example would be for when I was training my own small LM a while back, the target was about 170M parameters and was trained on 2B tokens worth of movie subtitles. The run stalled mid-step around 80M parameters, Orb notified me that it stalled, asked if I wanted to resume at the last checkpoint and kill the stalled version. I simply press “yes” and continue doing whatever I was doing. For non-techn…
That second one resonates a bit better for me.
Personally I don't think I'm ready to hand over total access to my digital life until I can self-host the model capable enough to act on it, but either way there is definitely some cool work to be done in the model harnesses for this.
Re: AI's top startups are barely publishing their research
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
That has nothing to do with anything. If you publish a copyleft paper, that doesn't compel someone who makes a product based on your paper to publish more papers.
The GNU RPL (research public license), a viral knowledge license. By reading this paper you are legally obligated to openly publish all vaguely related future research that you perform.
Sounds dystopian.
Re: AI's top startups are barely publishing their research
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
The GNU RPL (research public license), a viral knowledge license. By reading this paper you are legally obligated to openly publish all vaguely related future research that you perform.
There's already an RPL, incidentally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_Public_License Your RPL wouldn't be enforceable. Copyright doesn't deal with abstract ideas passing through people's minds. Even the GPL is kind of in a gray area because the virality feature and its definition of "derivative work" have never been tested in court, to my knowledge. Maybe under contract law, no idea. If nothing else, I'd lov…
Well it was a joke and is obviously quite silly but I believe it would be enforceable to the extent that the licensor could terminate the agreement and sue for damages. If I can agree to pay you not to talk about something (ie an NDA) or not to work in a field (ie a non-compete clause) then why can't I pay you to be required to publish all future work you do in a given area? ("All future work" might well be overly broad; you'd likely have to restrict it to only a few years but I'm no lawyer.)
I don't believe the GPL is in a grey area. When you license a work all sorts of strings are commonly attached. Rather IIUC no one has gone out of the way to test the GPL largely because it is clearly within bounds, plus any violation has the potential to be a PR disaster since violations are quite literally examples of looting the commons.
Re: AI's top startups are barely publishing their research
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's also a reason the big labs stopped. Publishing is most valuable to people who have no other way to get the attention of smart strangers. Once you can hire nearly anyone and everyone already returns your calls, the main remaining effect of publishing is to tell your competitors which things worked. This is what happens to every field as it turns from a science into an industry. Chemists published freely until d…
> Chemists published freely until dyes started being worth money Notably this is exactly what patents are intended to combat. And while US IP law is clearly very broken it does at least largely accomplish this stated goal. Much (but certainly not all) industrial chemistry has made it into the academic literature. Not that the same logic necessarily applies to AI research (ie algorithms aka math and their implementati…
It depends on the field, and to some extent on the particular patent officer assigned, but one of the failings of the US patent system is many patents don't actually provide enough details to reproduce the result. And even if they do they don't (usually) include ancillary information like the discovery process, properties of the invention etc.