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

Research papers using "kidney disappointment" instead of "kidney failure"

scholar.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–177 of 177 posts

Re: Research papers using "kidney disappointment" instead of "kidney failure"

#171

Post by jaredklewis »

mike_hearn wrote: post #79
apexalpha wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

During the whole BLM thing a few years ago my emplyer wanted "to do something" I guess so they added one of those "inclusive language" SaaS buttons. This seems more plausible to me. "Bosom peril" is not in any way a synonym for cancer. But if you think 'cancer' as a word will trigger people then softening it with 'peril' makes sense.

It's not a woke sensitivity thing. They're using spinners, tools designed for spammers years ago (long predating LLMs) that just randomly substitute words from a thesaurus. It works because so many academic journals are write-only media. The only things that actually "read" the papers are machines that check for plagiarism, compute citation counts and do other things used to decide on academic promotions. So it doesn…

Nice article.

Your description of the completely apathetic chain of actors, starting with the journal editors, was depressing to read.

You did not explicitly comment on it, but the situation also implies that even researchers don't really care about research? Like no advisers, or employers or colleagues are reading through these papers?

It feels like more people should have noticed that these journals will print garbage and having an article in a journal like this would not be a positive signal anymore. Maybe it just takes a while?

Re: Research papers using "kidney disappointment" instead of "kidney failure"

#172

Post by sebastiennight »

sublinear wrote: post #149
sebastiennight wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Historically, no. The simplest way to build autocorrect is to have a dictionary, look it up for each word, and suggest the "closest" dictionary word if a typed word is absent from the dictionary. It has existed way before transformers and on platforms that couldn't dream of running even the smallest transformer.

What do you mean by "look it up" if not measure the closest dictionary word by edit distance? I think you'll find the broader idea of word vectorization to be remarkably similar to what text transformers do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edit_distance

Yes, I meant, find the closest word by edit distance. I'm unsure where vectorization would factor in here?

Re: Research papers using "kidney disappointment" instead of "kidney failure"

#173

Post by sublinear »

sebastiennight wrote: post #172
sublinear wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "look it up" if not measure the closest dictionary word by edit distance? I think you'll find the broader idea of word vectorization to be remarkably similar to what text transformers do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edit_distance

Yes, I meant, find the closest word by edit distance. I'm unsure where vectorization would factor in here?

When I made this comment, I was thinking of edit distance embedding (like everyone else in this reply chain) while you're thinking of BK-trees.

We're just talking past each other. I agree that a tree is the historical solution. I didn't catch that part.

Re: Research papers using "kidney disappointment" instead of "kidney failure"

#174

Post by mike_hearn »

jaredklewis wrote: post #171
mike_hearn wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a woke sensitivity thing. They're using spinners, tools designed for spammers years ago (long predating LLMs) that just randomly substitute words from a thesaurus. It works because so many academic journals are write-only media. The only things that actually "read" the papers are machines that check for plagiarism, compute citation counts and do other things used to decide on academic promotions. So it doesn…

Nice article. Your description of the completely apathetic chain of actors, starting with the journal editors, was depressing to read. You did not explicitly comment on it, but the situation also implies that even researchers don't really care about research? Like no advisers, or employers or colleagues are reading through these papers? It feels like more people should have noticed that these journals will print garb…

Yeah, nobody is reading these journals. They all have dozens of "editors" but it's just CV manipulation.

People are noticing, that's why academic credibility is in free fall but it's all tied up with ideology. Academia purged everyone not on the far left a long time ago, so the left find it useful to promote universities as still having the highest rigour.

Re: Research papers using "kidney disappointment" instead of "kidney failure"

#175

Post by hdjdbckcnfn »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #127
LPisGood wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anthropic’s watermark is just using a known collection of random seeds during output token generation. That’s it. The models always relied on some randomness, here the randomness is fixed and remembered for querying later.

> Anthropic’s watermark is just using a known collection of random seeds during output token generation. That’s it. Wouldn't that mean that checking the watermark... (1) Required knowing the prompt used to generate the text; and (2) was just as expensive as generating the text?

wouldn't it mean reversing the output text into prompt and seed?
Post reply on HN