11–20 of 300 posts
Now the question is, will arxiv wage a decade long bloody war with Cornell, using heavy infantry (PhD students), archers (reviewers) and field artillery (AI slop papers), or will the independence be mostly peaceful? Only time can tell.
Good call, ArXiv seems like one of the most important institutions out there right now.
It’s so important, in fact, that there should be more than one such institution. People keep falling into the same trap. They love monopolies, then are shocked when those monopolies jerk them around.
Good call, ArXiv seems like one of the most important institutions out there right now.
It’s so important, in fact, that there should be more than one such institution. People keep falling into the same trap. They love monopolies, then are shocked when those monopolies jerk them around.
This sounds terrible. Of course there's a huge risk of it becoming made for-profit. It almost makes you wonder if the academic publishers are behind this push somehow. Could they not have made it into some legal structure that puts universities at the top? Say, with a bunch of universities owning shares that comprise the entirety of the ownership of arXiv, but that would allow arXiv to independently raise funds?
> Of course there's a huge risk of it becoming made for-profit. The article says that "it will become an independent nonprofit corporation", and as OpenAI's failed attempt showed, converting a non-profit to a for-profit organization is either really hard or impossible. > Could they not have made it into some legal structure that puts universities at the top? As a corporation (even a non-profit one), it will have a bo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Of course there's a huge risk of it becoming made for-profit. The article says that "it will become an independent nonprofit corporation", and as OpenAI's failed attempt showed, converting a non-profit to a for-profit organization is either really hard or impossible. > Could they not have made it into some legal structure that puts universities at the top? As a corporation (even a non-profit one), it will have a bo…
OpenAI didn't get everything that they wanted, but I very much disagree with calling it a "failed attempt". The non-profit went from owning the entirety of OpenAI to having ~25% stake.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Of course there's a huge risk of it becoming made for-profit. The article says that "it will become an independent nonprofit corporation", and as OpenAI's failed attempt showed, converting a non-profit to a for-profit organization is either really hard or impossible. > Could they not have made it into some legal structure that puts universities at the top? As a corporation (even a non-profit one), it will have a bo…
OpenAI didn't get everything that they wanted, but I very much disagree with calling it a "failed attempt". The non-profit went from owning the entirety of OpenAI to having ~25% stake.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OpenAI didn't get everything that they wanted, but I very much disagree with calling it a "failed attempt". The non-profit went from owning the entirety of OpenAI to having ~25% stake.
Sam Altman is a special kind of person; not many could pull off the schemes he does.
That is, it's not readily parseable, it really gives an insider term vibe - like this isn't for you if you don't already know what it means or how you should read or say it. It sort of reminds me of the overuse of latin and latinate terms generally in the old professions and, well, the academy.
Just always struck me as being somewhat at odds with the goal.
Very unrelated to the article, but I think 'arXiv' as a brand is bad, and really detrimental to what the institution aims to accomplish. That is, it's not readily parseable, it really gives an insider term vibe - like this isn't for you if you don't already know what it means or how you should read or say it. It sort of reminds me of the overuse of latin and latinate terms generally in the old professions and, well,…
To me it's just a way to get out your work fast, so that there is already a trace of it on the Internets - nothing more and nothing less.
> That is, it's not readily parseable, it really gives an insider term vibe...
Isn't that normal with highly specialized research fields? I agree many papers could benefit from clearer wording, but working in a niche means you sometimes don't reach a broader audience