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

251–260 of 543 posts

Re: Prism

#251

Post by fooker »

overfeed wrote: post #160
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…

> The effort to review this stuff is now massively more than the effort to "create" it I don't doubt the AI companies will soon announce products that will claim to solve this very problem, generating turnkey submission reviews. Double-dipping is very profitable. It appears LLM-parasitism isn't close to being done, and keeps finding new commons to spoil.

There are a dozen startups that do this.

Re: Prism

#252

Post by MITSardine »

jll29 wrote: post #177
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 thes…

Speaking of conferences, might this not be the way to judge this work? You could imagine only orally defended work to be publishable, or at least have the prestige of vetting, in a bit of an old-school science revival.

Re: Prism

#253

Post by drusepth »

falcor84 wrote: post #151
0dayman wrote: post #34

in the end we're going to end up with papers written by AI, proofread by AI .....summarized for readers by AI. I think this is just for them to remain relevant and be seen as still pushing something out

You're assuming a world where humans are still needed to read the papers. I'm more worried about a future world where AIs do all of the work of progressing science and humans just become bystanders.

Why are you worried about that world? Is it because you expect science to progress too fast, or too slow?

Re: Prism

#254

Post by MITSardine »

nestes wrote: post #148
lupsasca wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By "grabbing references" I meant queries of the type "add paper [bla] to the bibliography" -- that seems useful to me!

Focusing in on "grabbing references", it's as easy as drag-and-drop if you use Zotero. It can copy/paste references in BibTeX format. You can even customize it through the BetterBibTeX extension. If you're not a Zotero user, I can't recommend it enough.

I have a terrible memory for details, I'll admit an LLM I can just tell "Find that paper by X's group on Method That Does This And That" and finds me the paper is enticing. I say this because I abandoned Zotero once the list of refs became large enough that I could never find anything quickly.

Re: Prism

#256

Post by raincole »

I know many people have negative opinions about this.

I'd also like to share what I saw. Since GPT-4o became a thing, everyone who submits academic papers I know in my non-english speaking country (N > 5) has been writing papers in our native language and translating them with GPT-4o exclusively. It has been the norm for quite a while. If hallucination is such a serious problem it has been so for one and half a year.

Re: Prism

#257

Post by hatmatrix »

markbao wrote: post #37

Not an academic, but I used LaTeX for years and it doesn’t feel like what future of publishing should use. It’s finicky and takes so much markup to do simple things. A lab manager once told me about a study that people who used MS Word to typeset were more productive, and I can see that…

That study must have compared beginners in LaTeX and MS Word. There is a learning curve, but LaTeX will often save more time in the end.

It is an old language though. LaTeX is the macro system on top of TeX, but now you can write markdown or org-mode (or orgdown) and generate LaTeX -> PDF via pandoc/org-mode. Maybe this is the level of abstraction we should be targeting. Though currently, you still need to drop into LaTeX for very specific fine-tuning.

Re: Prism

#258

Post by lupire »

storystarling wrote: post #193
jcranmer wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first casualty of LLMs was the slush pile--the unsolicited submission pile for publishers. We've since seen bug bounty programs and open source repositories buckle under the load of AI-generated contributions. And all of these have the same underlying issue: the LLM makes it easy to do things that don't immediately look like garbage, which makes the volume of submission skyrocket while the time-to-reject also goe…

I run a small print-on-demand platform and this is exactly what we're seeing. The submissions used to be easy to filter with basic heuristics or cheap classifiers, but now the grammar and structure are technically perfect. The problem is that running a stronger model to detect the semantic drift or hallucinations costs more than the potential margin on the book. We're pretty much back to manual review which destroys…

Why would detecting AI be more expensive than creating it?

Re: Prism

#259

Post by lupire »

jll29 wrote: post #177
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 thes…

Self-solving problem: AI oral exam administration: https://www.gatech.edu/news/2024/09/24/ai-oral-assessment-to...

Re: Prism

#260

Post by Fnoord »

DonaldPShimoda wrote: post #203
varjag wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't care. Musk stole a chunk Heinlein's literary legacy with Grok (which unlike prism wasn't a common word) and noone bat an eye.

> Grok (which unlike prism wasn't a common word) "Grok" was a term used in my undergrad CS courses in the early 2010s. It's been a pretty common word in computing for a while now, though the current generation of young programmers and computer scientists seem not to know it as readily, so it may be falling out of fashion in those spaces.

Wikipedia about Groklaw [1]

> Groklaw was a website that covered legal news of interest to the free and open source software community. Started as a law blog on May 16, 2003, by paralegal Pamela Jones ("PJ"), it covered issues such as the SCO-Linux lawsuits, the EU antitrust case against Microsoft, and the standardization of Office Open XML.

> Its name derives from "grok", roughly meaning "to understand completely", which had previously entered geek slang.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groklaw

Post reply on HN