Curious in terms of trademark, does it could infringe in Vercel's Prisma (very popular ORM / framework in node.js) ? EDIT: as corrected by comment, Prisma is not Vercel, but ©2026 Prisma Data, Inc. -- curiosity still persists(?)
[dead]
Prism
161–170 of 543 posts
Re: Prism
#162Curious in terms of trademark, does it could infringe in Vercel's Prisma (very popular ORM / framework in node.js) ? EDIT: as corrected by comment, Prisma is not Vercel, but ©2026 Prisma Data, Inc. -- curiosity still persists(?)
https://github.com/prisma/prisma is its own thing, yeah? not affiliated with Vercel AFAICT.
Re: Prism
#163This seems like a very basic overleaf alternative with few of its features, plus a shallow ChatGPT wrapper. Certainly can’t compete with using VS Code or TeXstudio locally, collaborating through GitHub, and getting AI assistance from Claude Code or Codex.
Getting close to the "why Dropbox when you can rsync" mistake (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224)
@vicapow replied to keep the Dropbox parallel alive
Re: Prism
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious how it compares to Overleaf in terms of features? Putting aside the AI aspect entirely, I'm simply curious if this is a viable Overleaf competitor -- especially since it's free. I do self-host Overleaf which is annoying but ultimately doable if you don't want to pay the $21/mo (!). I do have to wonder for how long it will be free or even supported, though. On the one hand, remote LaTeX compiling gets expe…
Overleaf is a little curious to me. What's the point? Just install LaTeX. Claude is very good at manipulating LaTeX documents and I've found it effective at fixing up layouts for me.
To add to the points raised by others, "just install LaTeX" is not imo a very strong argument. I prefer working in a local environment, but many of my colleagues much prefer a web app that "just works" to figuring out what MiKTeX is.
Re: Prism
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There could be a submission fee that would be fully reimbursed if the submission is actually accepted for publication. While well-intentioned, I think this is just gate-keeping. There are mountains of research that result in nothing interesting whatsoever (aside from learning about what doesn't work). And all of that is still valuable knowledge!
Sure, but now we can't even assume that such research is submitted in good faith anymore. There just seems to be no perfect solution. Maybe something like a "hierarchy/DAG? of trusted-peers", where groups like universities certify the relevance and correctness of papers by attaching their name and a global reputation score to it. When it's found that the paper is "undesirable" and doesn't pass a subsequent review, th…
How would this work for independent researchers?
(no snark)
Re: Prism
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would be tricky, I often submitted to multiple high impact journals going down the list until someone accepted it. You try to ballpark where you can go but it can be worth aiming high. Maybe this isn't a problem and there should be payment for the efforts to screen the paper but then I would expect the reviewers to be paid for their time.
I mean your methodology also sounds suspect. You're just going down a list until it sticks. You don't care where it ends up (I'm sure within reason) just as long as it is accepted and published somewhere (again, within reason).
No different from applying to jobs. Much like companies, there are a variety of journals with varying levels of prestige or that fit your paper better/worse. You don't know in advance which journals will respond to your paper, which ones just received submissions similar to yours, etc.
Plus, the t in me from submission to acceptance/rejection can be long. For cutting edge science, you can't really afford to wait to hear back before applying to another journal.
All this to say that spamming 1,000 journals with a submission is bad, but submitting to the journals in your field that are at least decent fits for your paper is good practice.
Re: Prism
#167Very unfortunately named. OpenAI probably (and likely correctly) estimated that 13 years is enough time after the Snowden leaks to use "prism" for a product but, for me, the word is permanently tainted.
Anecdotally, I have mentioned PRISM to several non-techie friends over the years and none of them knew what I was talking about, they know 'Snowden' but not 'PRISM'. The amount of people who actually cared about the Snowden leaks is practically a rounding error
Most people don't care about the details. Neither does the media. I've seen national scandals that the media pushed one way disproven during discovery in a legal trial. People only remember headlines, the retractions are never re-published or remembered.
Re: Prism
#168From 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…
wouldn't AI actually be good for filtering given it's going to be a lot better at knowing what has been published? Also seems possible that it could actually work out papers that have ideas that are novel, or at least come up with some kind of likely score.
Re: Prism
#169Previously, this existed as crixet.com [0]. At some point it used WASM for client-side compilation, and later transitioned to server-side rendering [1][2]. It now appears that there will be no option to disable AI [3]. I hope the core features remain available and won’t be artificially restricted. Compared to Overleaf, there were fewer service limitations: it was possible to compile more complex documents, share proj…
It seems bad for OpenAI to make this about latex documents, which will be now associated, visually, with AI slop. The opposite of what anyone wants really. Nobody wants you to know they used a chatbot!
Am I missing something? LaTeX is associated with slop now?
Re: Prism
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
In a corollary to Sturgeon's Law, I'd propose Altman's Law: "In the Age of AI, 99.999...% of everything is crap"
Altman's Law: 99% of all content is slop
I can get behind this. This assumes a tool will need to be made to help determine the 1% that isn't slop. At which point I assume we will have reinvented web search once more.
Has anyone looked at reviving PageRank?