Since it offers collaboration for free, it can take a bite out of overleaf market.
Prism
461–470 of 543 posts
Re: Prism
#462It feels generally a bit dangerous to use an AI product to work on research when (1) it's free and (2) the company hosting it makes money by shipping productized research
I am not so skeptical about AI usage for paper writing as the paper will be often public days after anyways (pre-print servers such as arXiv).
So yes, you use it to write the paper but soon it is public knowledge anyway.
I am not sure if there is much to learn from the draft of the authors.
Re: Prism
#463Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, I don't know anything about marketing and you might have a point, but the severity of impact of these two words is clearly very different, so it doesn't look like a good comparison to me. It would raise quite a few eyebrows and more if, for example, someone released a Linux distro named "Auschwitz OS", meanwhile, even in the software world, there are multiple products that incorporate the word prism in various…
I think the ideas was to try to explain why is a problem to choose something, it is not a comparison of the intensity / importance. I am not sure you can make an argument of "other people are doing it too". Lots of people do things that it is not in their interest (ex: smoking, to pick the easy one). As others mentioned, I did not have the negative connotation related to the word prism either, but not sure how could…
But without the extremity of the Auschwitz example, it suddenly is not a problem. Prism is an unbelievably generic word and I had not even heard of the Snowdon one until now nor would I remember it if I had. Prism is one step away from "Triangle" in terms of how generic it is.
Re: Prism
#464Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are they good at translating scientific jargon specific to a niche within a field? I have no doubt LLMs are excellent at translating well-trodden patterns; I'm a bit suspicious otherwise..
for better or for worse, most specific scientific jargon is already going to be in english
[deleted]
Re: Prism
#465Previously, 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…
I was using Crixet before I switched over to Typst[0] for all of my writing. However, back when I did use Crixet, I never used its AI features. It was just a much better alternative to Overleaf for me. Sad to see that AI will be forced on all Crixet users now.
[0]: https://typst.app
Re: Prism
#466Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are they good at translating scientific jargon specific to a niche within a field? I have no doubt LLMs are excellent at translating well-trodden patterns; I'm a bit suspicious otherwise..
It seems to me that jargon would tend to be defined in one language and minimally adapted in other languages. So I’d not sure that would be much of a concern.
I would look at non-English research papers along with the English ones in my field and the more jargon and just plain numbers and equations there were, the more I could get out of it without much further translation.
Re: Prism
#467Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly, hallucinated references should simply get the submitter banned from ever applying again. Anyone submitting papers or anything with hallucinated references shall be publicly shamed. The problem isn't only the LLMs hallucinating, it's lazy and immoral humans who don't bother to check the output either, wasting everyone's time and corroding public trust in science and research.
I fully agree. Not reading your own references should be grounds for banning, but that's impossible to check. Hallucinated references cannot be read, so by definition,they should get people banned.
>Not reading your own references
This could be considered in degrees.
Like when you only need a single table from another researcher's 25-page publication, you would cite it to be thorough but it wouldn't be so bad if you didn't even read very much of their other text. Perhaps not any at all.
Maybe one of the very helpful things is not just reading every reference in detail, but actually looking up every one in detail to begin with?
Re: Prism
#468> Prism is free to use, and anyone with a ChatGPT account can start writing immediately.
Great, so now I'll have to sift through a bunch of ostensibly legitimate (though legitimate looking) non-peer reviewed whitepapers, where if I forget to check the peer review status even once I risk wasting a large amount of time reading gobbledygook. Thanks openai?
Re: Prism
#469Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've heard that now that AI conferences are starting to check for hallucinated references, rejection rates are going up significantly. See also the Neurips hallucinated references kerfuffle [1] [1]: https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2026/01/26/machine-le...
Yeah that's not going to work for long. You can draw a line in 2023, and say "Every paper before this isn't AI". But in the future, you're going to have AI generated papers citing other AI slop papers that slipped through the cracks, because of the cost of doing reseach vs the cost of generating AI slop, the AI slop papers will start to outcompete the real research papers.
>the cost of doing reseach vs the cost of generating
>slop papers will start to outcompete the real research papers.
This started to rear its ugly head when electric typewriters got more affordable.
Sometimes all it takes is faster horses and you're off to the races :\
Re: Prism
#470I'm dumbfounded they chose the name of the infamous NSA mass surveillance program revealed by Snowden in 2013. And even more so that there is just one other comment among 320 pointing this out [1]. Has the technical and scientific community in the US already forgotten this huge breach of trust? This is especially jarring at a time where the US is burning its political good-will at unprecedented rate (at least unprece…
I get what you're saying, but that was 13 years ago. How long before the branding statute of limitations runs out on usage for a simple noun?