241–250 of 341 posts
It's a jungle out there and no one is following any real ehtical lines on this race to the top. Everyone is trying to consume as much as possible while disclosing as little as possible. Any papers published are probably reviewed 10 times to ensure no "secrets" that could be re-applied are leaked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> To your dye example, yttrium indium manganese blue was the first commercially viable inorganic blue pigment discovered in ~200 years, is the only known environmentally safe one, and was openly published in the literature. It's also under an exclusive license. Gee, I wonder what was wrong with the previous blue pigments and why it was so important to have this one under an exclusive license. Cobalt blue is a blue p…
> P.S. Don't lick your brushes. Cobalt poisoning sounds scary, but I see nothing on the linked Wikipedia page that would present a risk of accidental consumption of medically relevant amounts of cobalt, whether in one sitting or through prolonged exposure. I mean, I assume Canada stopped adding it to their beer ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt#Toxicity ). Though the mention of Bolesławiec makes me worried a lit…
I don't think you need to worry about that. The pigment is already reasonably benign when in solid form; once embedded in or under a glaze I'm not aware of anything that would suggest it carries any health risks whatsoever.
That said I'm unclear how safe direct exposure to the pigment itself is (such as when suspended in a liquid for painting). There's not a lot of data available that I could find, and of course due to having a unique crystalline structure it won't necessarily have the same properties as the component products, however cobalt(II) oxide itself is extremely hazardous which is at least cause to be cautious.
Other than manufacturing safety primarily the new pigment is just incredibly vivid.
And it makes sense. If you publish some state-of-the-art algorithm then you're basically helping your competition, and you don't get anything back from them. So you publish bare minimum in small articles on your website, only to gain people's/investors' interest, and just hope that you didn't share too much. And it'll always be like that, unless the root cause changes - intentives. And the main incentives right now a…
You know also what was the biggest help for these companies? All the data they scrapped from the internet, the books they torrented, the open source projects whose licenses they did not respect. The least these companies can do is to publish everything they own
Well, being able to talk to superintelligent all-knowing savant 24/7 on your phone for $20 a month is also something
I can’t speak for other startups, but I applied to the most recent YC batch with my idea for making AI proactive instead of reactive, and pre-being selected I’ve published a paper on recursive self-improvement mapped to the Epoch AI data. I contacted a professor from a university in the UK and he responded since he was working on similar work, then asked me if I wanted to meet with him. We talked for about an hour si…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's already an RPL, incidentally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_Public_License Your RPL wouldn't be enforceable. Copyright doesn't deal with abstract ideas passing through people's minds. Even the GPL is kind of in a gray area because the virality feature and its definition of "derivative work" have never been tested in court, to my knowledge. Maybe under contract law, no idea. If nothing else, I'd lov…
Well it was a joke and is obviously quite silly but I believe it would be enforceable to the extent that the licensor could terminate the agreement and sue for damages. If I can agree to pay you not to talk about something (ie an NDA) or not to work in a field (ie a non-compete clause) then why can't I pay you to be required to publish all future work you do in a given area? ("All future work" might well be overly br…
This means you are creating IP, not modifying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's also a reason the big labs stopped. Publishing is most valuable to people who have no other way to get the attention of smart strangers. Once you can hire nearly anyone and everyone already returns your calls, the main remaining effect of publishing is to tell your competitors which things worked. This is what happens to every field as it turns from a science into an industry. Chemists published freely until d…
Which is a very ironic and selfish situation when your business model dependent mostly on model training based on available published data, academic and non-academic.
Public papers with described research give advance to similar people. They jump over you and in many cases they give nothing back.
(Intellectual) greed is everywhere and is cross-border.
In case of public papers there is one extra vulnerability - competitor(s) can build anywhere, under the radar.
That’s why companies are so cautious about publishing their research…
I've been at two startups that have done genuine world first fundamental research. The first tried to publish novel results for 3 years in tier 1 journals before finally doing a preprint and telling the tier one publishers to jump in a fire. The second, and ongoing, isn't publishing anything because of my experience with the first. That and avoiding openAI and Anthropic copying our results and leaving us with nothing…
Tier 1 is HARD. Universiy labs (where publishing is their bread and butter) and have multi-year streaks of Tier 1 papers, still seek out collaborations when publishing. Because you still need this extra angle on your work that will make it stand against the proverbial Reviewer 2, or that extra evaluation paragraph that will make it stand out. And don't forget that each Tier 1 publication is probably the life of at least 1 PhD student for several months.
So if you don't put the time and effort in it, forget Tier 1. This is like believing that because you have excellent voice and singing skills, all you have to do to get a top 10 hit is to send your demo tape to a recording company.
I've been at two startups that have done genuine world first fundamental research. The first tried to publish novel results for 3 years in tier 1 journals before finally doing a preprint and telling the tier one publishers to jump in a fire. The second, and ongoing, isn't publishing anything because of my experience with the first. That and avoiding openAI and Anthropic copying our results and leaving us with nothing…
There is almost no benefit in publishing frontier research as a startup. People can try to argue it but it is not defensible. Publishing that kind of thing is a flex that companies risking nothing can do. Cool for Google. Problematic if you are a startup.
And it makes sense. If you publish some state-of-the-art algorithm then you're basically helping your competition, and you don't get anything back from them. So you publish bare minimum in small articles on your website, only to gain people's/investors' interest, and just hope that you didn't share too much. And it'll always be like that, unless the root cause changes - intentives. And the main incentives right now a…
What other incentives can you imagine for Homo Sapiens?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i wish more people would publish the things that didn't work. i'd like everything, but the exploration of searched negative space is so wasteful.
Everyone says this in the abstract but to concrete examples they shug and say, of course that approach doesn't work, they did X, Y, Z wrong, they should have given it more effort, it could have worked if done properly / this can obviously never work, everyone knew already, it's nothing new etc.
And that's probably one of the main reasons it's not done more often.