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

The danger of relying on OpenAI's Deep Research

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 63 posts

Re: The danger of relying on OpenAI's Deep Research

#41

Post by oefrha »

bruce511 wrote: post #30
aeternum wrote: post #6

We could fix it all with a single law: All federally funded research papers must be published with full open access. The issue is the models can mostly only access abstracts (same as the majority of humans!) and thus we are back to the dark ages where knowledge is hoarded by the aristocrats in their ivory towers of academia.

Right now, today, nothing stops academia from publishing every paper they write to be open to all. The internet is there and publishing is free. The fact that they don't implies that they perceive some value is provided by publishing in the traditional way. Assuming that journals die as a result of your law (why would people pay for a journal anymore?) is it worth considering that value (perceived or real) before adv…

There are very cheap arXiv overlay journals where the processing fee is about $10 per submission.[1] And that’s with a for profit entity providing the platform. Reviewing is already unpaid, editing is often unpaid even with traditional journals.

Your “journals die as a result” assumption is faulty.

Not to mention for quite a few fields you can already find every remotely worthwhile paper on arXiv. Those fields didn’t collapse.

[1] https://gowers.wordpress.com/2015/09/10/discrete-analysis-an...

Re: The danger of relying on OpenAI's Deep Research

#42

Post by Ericson2314 »

aeternum wrote: post #6

We could fix it all with a single law: All federally funded research papers must be published with full open access. The issue is the models can mostly only access abstracts (same as the majority of humans!) and thus we are back to the dark ages where knowledge is hoarded by the aristocrats in their ivory towers of academia.

At the rate things are going, I also hope we continue to have "federally funded research" at all...

Re: The danger of relying on OpenAI's Deep Research

#44

Post by molteanu »

hi_hi wrote: post #11

We know the limitations of current LLM AI. I didn't read the article. Is there anything in these "dangers" that isn't currently known, mainly hallucination related? All these anti LLM articles are starting to become as tiresome as the pro LLM ones.

It would probably be fair or "normal" if for every pro-article, regardles of the subject, there would be room for the contrary opinion, for the downsides. That would inject some dose of realism into the discussion.

Otherwise the journalism, in general, is not in such a great shape if it can only regurgitate the same thing over and over, the same words from the same mouths.

Just an idea. I donno.

Re: The danger of relying on OpenAI's Deep Research

#45

Post by casey2 »

cratermoon wrote: post #21
Workaccount2 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The models that exist right now would still be considered alpha LLMs. Even a half decent video game takes longer to make than the time since GPT3.5 launched. If they still are at this level in 2-3 years, then yeah, it will likely cause a bunch of bad downstream effects. But at least recognize that it is still a few years too early to judge.

Allow me to introduce The First Step Fallacy. https://thebullshitmachines.com/lesson-16-the-first-step-fal...

It's an inductive claim yes, nevertheless it's based on mountains of evidence. Nobody is claiming to have logically deduced that AI progress is inevitable, we might all drop dead tomorrow or stop working on it, but the trends are clear

Re: The danger of relying on OpenAI's Deep Research

#46

Post by [deleted] »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #10
azinman2 wrote: post #3

The world is going to become stupider because it’s easier. This will be most dramatic for the youth in both school learning as well as in the field. Unfortunately I don’t realistically see another path in any reasonable time unless the world takes a radical turn away from AI (extremely unlikely).

They probably said the same thing when the printing press came out. “How can you really know the book if you didn’t copy it down yourself during a reading?” But the printing press won out in the end.

[deleted]

Re: The danger of relying on OpenAI's Deep Research

#47

Post by marcus_holmes »

yunwal wrote: post #19
azinman2 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because all your writing is being done for you. All your homework is done for you. You go to start coding as an engineer, you just copy/paste from an AI until it runs. No need to think, no need to try to figure it out for yourself, no need to learn anything.

Great, go get yourself 4 phds and a 600k/year job if ai can do everything for you! Meanwhile the rest of us in the real world will continue understanding the limits of the tools we use.

Both those things (PhD and high salary) require human interaction to achieve, not knowledge or tool use. There are many examples of people achieving both/either whilst being ignorant and/or unintelligent.

The comment was about "you're not going to know anything because the LLM is doing it for you" which is easily obviously true. This won't stop anyone from getting a PhD or a high salary. It will just stop them from knowing things, and possibly being able to build cool stuff (specifically in the example of software dev), though even then you could argue that a good working knowledge of how to prompt an LLM is roughly as performant as a good working knowledge of a software language.

Re: The danger of relying on OpenAI's Deep Research

#48

Post by qingcharles »

azinman2 wrote: post #3

The world is going to become stupider because it’s easier. This will be most dramatic for the youth in both school learning as well as in the field. Unfortunately I don’t realistically see another path in any reasonable time unless the world takes a radical turn away from AI (extremely unlikely).

> "SHE PROCEEDS TO ASK CHATGPT TO ANSWER EVERY SINGLE QUESTION IN HER 2 PAGE MATH HOMEWORK and these include VERY SIMPLE QUESTIONS like how many hours are there in 1 day and 7 hours"

https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1hun3e4/my_little_...

Re: The danger of relying on OpenAI's Deep Research

#49

Post by mrtesthah »

dlahoda wrote: post #25
mrtesthah wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We could fix it all with a single law: All federally funded research papers must be published with full open access. Two things wrong with this sentence: 1. All federal funding for research is in jeopardy. https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/trumps-nih-budg... 2. The executive branch now considers itself superior to the legislative and judicial branches, so actions of the legislative branch (i.e., laws ) m…

1. tax funded researchers did not publish non pay walled. right? 2. as per link text, there was denial to access treasure dep records. so what is secrecy in there? so let just append '... and data' to the root of thread

It’s not about access to data—it’s about removing Congress’ control of the federal government. That control is maintained via laws and courts.

Today the president just formally assumed power over those other two branches of government, so law is effectively meaningless now.

https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1isvzgu/the_full_execu...

Whose side will you be on—-the side of billionaires and the christian nationalist heritage foundation, or the rest of the people of the united states? Choose wisely.

Re: The danger of relying on OpenAI's Deep Research

#50

Post by aeternum »

bruce511 wrote: post #30
aeternum wrote: post #6

We could fix it all with a single law: All federally funded research papers must be published with full open access. The issue is the models can mostly only access abstracts (same as the majority of humans!) and thus we are back to the dark ages where knowledge is hoarded by the aristocrats in their ivory towers of academia.

Right now, today, nothing stops academia from publishing every paper they write to be open to all. The internet is there and publishing is free. The fact that they don't implies that they perceive some value is provided by publishing in the traditional way. Assuming that journals die as a result of your law (why would people pay for a journal anymore?) is it worth considering that value (perceived or real) before adv…

Many of the prestigious journals do require an exclusive license:

https://www.springernature.com/gp/open-science/policies/jour...

Under the Springer Nature Subscription licence agreement Share the final published work with peers: Limited sharing for research and career advancement allowed

And it's typically quite expensive to publish under the OA license. I still see no problem with the proposed law. One of two things would happen: 1) Federally funded researchers publish elsewhere or 2) Springer changes their ridiculous agreements, there's no reason they must be granted exclusive rights to a paper just to publish it especially when taxpayers funded the research.

I'd be willing to bet that 1 will lead to 2 in short order.

Post reply on HN