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

171–180 of 543 posts

Re: Prism

#171

Post by CobrastanJorji »

"Hey, you know how everybody's complaining about AI making up totally fake science shit? Like, fake citations, garbage content, fake numbers, etc?"

"Sure, yes, it comes up all the time in circles that talk about AI all the time, and those are the only circles worth joining."

"Well, what if we made a product entirely focused on having AI generate papers? Like, every step of the paper writing, we give the AI lots of chances to do stuff. Drafting, revisions, preparing to publish, all of it."

"I dunno, does anybody want that?"

"Who cares, we're fucked in about two years if we don't figure out a way to beat the competitors. They have actual profits, they can ride out AI as long as they want."

"Yeah, I guess you're right, let's do your scientific paper generation thing."

Re: Prism

#172

Post by zb3 »

Is this the product where OpenAI will (soon) take profit share from inventions made there?

Re: Prism

#173

Post by bmaranville »

Having a chatbot that can natively "speak" latex seems like it might be useful to scientists that already use it exclusively for their work. Writing papers is incredibly time-consuming for a lot of reasons, and having a helper to make quick (non-substantive) edits could be great. Of course, that's not how people will use it...

I would note that Overleaf's main value is as a collaborative authoring tool and not a great latex experience, but science is ideally a collaborative effort.

Re: Prism

#174

Post by Imustaskforhelp »

SimianSci wrote: post #170
willturman wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I mean Kagi is probably the PageRank revival we are talking about.

I have heard from people here that Kagi can help remove slop from searches so I guess yeah.

Although I guess I am DDG user and I love using DDG as well because its free as well but I can see how for some price can be a non issue and they might like kagi more.

So Kagi / DDG (Duckduckgo) yeah.

Re: Prism

#175

Post by [deleted] »

postalcoder wrote: post #4

Very 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.

[deleted]

Re: Prism

#177

Post by jll29 »

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 totally agree. I spend my whole day from getting up to going to bed (not before reading HN!) on reviews for a conference I'm co-organizing later this year.

So I was not amused about this announcement at all, however easy it may make my own life as an author (I'm pretty happy to do my own literature search, thank you very much).

Also remember, we have no guarantee that these tools will still exist tomorrow, all these AI companies are constantly pivoting and throwing a lot of things at the wall to see what sticks.

OpenAI chose not to build a serious product, as there is no integration with the ACM DL, the IEEE DL, SpringerNatureLink, the ACL Anthology, Wiley, Cambridge/Oxford/Harvard University Press etc. - only papers that are not peer reviewed (arXiv.org) are available/have been integrated. Expect a flood of BS your way.

When my student submit a piece of writing, I can ask them to orally defend their opus maximum (more and more often, ChatGPT's...); I can't do the same with anonymous authors.

Re: Prism

#178

Post by monkaiju »

cryzinger wrote: post #158
SchemaLoad wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GenAI largely seems like a DDoS on free resources. The effort to review this stuff is now massively more than the effort to "create" it, so really what is the point of even submitting it, the reviewer could have generated it themself. Seeing it in software development where coworkers are submitting massive PRs they generated but hardly read or tested. Shifting the real work to the PR review. I'm not sure what the fin…

More relevant than ever: > The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law

Wow the 3 comments from OC to here are all bangers, they combine into a really nice argument against these toys

Re: Prism

#179

Post by jll29 »

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.

Soon, poor people will talk to a LLM, rich people will get human medical care.
Post reply on HN