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

Prism

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 543 posts

Re: Prism

#111

Post by pfisherman »

renyicircle wrote: post #89
ai_critic wrote: post #41

Anybody else notice that half the video was just finding papers to decorate the bibliography with? Not like "find me more papers I should read and consider", but "find papers that are relevant that I should cite--okay, just add those". This is all pageantry.

It's as if it's marketed to the students who have been using ChatGPT for the last few years to pass courses and now need to throw together a bachelor's thesis. Bibliography and proper citation requirements are a pain.

That is such a bummer. At the time, it was annoying and I groused and grumbled about it; but in hindsight my reviewers pointed me toward some good articles, and I am better for having read them.

Re: Prism

#112

Post by CJefferson »

lupsasca wrote: post #46
JBorrow wrote: post #32

From my perspective as a journal editor and a reviewer these kinds of tools cause many more problems than they actually solve. They make the 'barrier to entry' for submitting vibed semi-plausible journal articles much lower, which I understand some may see as a benefit. The drawback is that scientific editors and reviewers provide those services for free, as a community benefit. One example was a submission their und…

I am very sympathetic to your point of view, but let me offer another perspective. First off, you can already vibe-write slop papers with AI, even in LaTeX format--tools like Prism are not needed for that. On the other hand, it can really help researchers improve the quality of their papers. I'm someone who collaborates with many students and postdocs. My time is limited and I spend a lot of it on LaTeX drudgery that…

What the heck is the point of a reference you never read?

Re: Prism

#114

Post by jplusequalt »

InsideOutSanta wrote: post #71
JBorrow wrote: post #32

From my perspective as a journal editor and a reviewer these kinds of tools cause many more problems than they actually solve. They make the 'barrier to entry' for submitting vibed semi-plausible journal articles much lower, which I understand some may see as a benefit. The drawback is that scientific editors and reviewers provide those services for free, as a community benefit. One example was a submission their und…

I'm scared that this type of thing is going to do to science journals what AI-generated bug reports is doing to bug bounties. We're truly living in a post-scarcity society now, except that the thing we have an abundance of is garbage, and it's drowning out everything of value.

Digital pollution.

Re: Prism

#116

Post by jsrozner »

AI: enshittifying everything you once cared about or relied upon

(re the decline of scientific integrity / signal-to-noise ratio in science)

Re: Prism

#117

Post by asadm »

Disappointing actually, what I actually need is a research "management" tool that lets me put in relevant citations but also goes through ENTIRE arxiv or google scholar and connect ideas or find novel ideas in random fields that somehow relate to what I am trying to solve.

Re: Prism

#118

Post by exyi »

reassess_blind wrote: post #113

Do you think they used an em-dash in the opening sentence because they’re trying to normalise the AI’s writing style, or…

... or they teached GPT to use em-dashes, because of their love for em-dashes :)

Re: Prism

#119

Post by torginus »

reassess_blind wrote: post #113

Do you think they used an em-dash in the opening sentence because they’re trying to normalise the AI’s writing style, or…

I haven't used MS Word in quite a while, but I distinctly remember it changed minus signs to em dashes.

Re: Prism

#120

Post by maxkfranz »

ezst wrote: post #102
maxkfranz wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I generally agree. On the other hand, the world is now a different place as compared to when several prominent journals were founded (1869-1880 for Nature, Science, Elsevier). The tacit assumptions upon which they were founded might no longer hold in the future. The world is going to continue to change, and the publication process as it stands might need to adapt for it to be sustainable.

As I understand it, the problem isn't publication or how it's changing over time, it's about the challenges of producing new science when the existing one is muddied in plausible lies. That warrants a new process by which to assess the inherent quality of a paper, but even if it comes as globally distributed, the cheats have a huge advantage considering the asymmetry between the effort to vibe produce vs. the tedious…

That’s a good point. On the other hand, we’ve had that problem long before AI. You already need to mentally filter papers based on your assessment of the reputability of the authors.

The whole process should be made more transparent and open from the start, rather than adding more gatekeeping. There ought to be openness and transparency throughout the entire research process, with auditing-ability automatically baked in, rather than just at the time of publication. One man’s opinion, anyway.

Post reply on HN