61–70 of 75 posts
It reminds me of “Tai’s method” of integration - an approximation discovered in 1994. https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/9602/rediscover... I think I found it in that other world that is the past on Slashdot - which was a Hacker News from another era https://m.slashdot.org/story/144664
I agree that's a good parallel. I had not seen it before. Thanks for the link.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know for a fact [1] that the neuroscientific discoveries were not independent of physics: the people doing the developing were largely former physicists. They likely didn't cite anything because why would you cite phase transitions or criticality? You learn about them in class as a physicist. I strongly suspect the ecology results weren't independent either, but all the theoretical ecologists I know are relatively…
> because why would you cite phase transitions or criticality? You learn about them in class as a physicist I'm not sure if you're being entirely serious with that remark, but clearly citing the earlier work would have bolstered their credibility: interdisciplinary research is a plus and hardly something to hide. If it's something that's taught in physics class, you can cite a common textbook.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair call on the website — we built it fast and it shows. The paper itself is a traditional literature review and citation analysis. I am one of two human authors. We use standard methodology. Didier Sornette endorsed it for arXiv. Thanks for pulling out the direct link. I'll change the site to make it more prominent. This is my first serious attempt at social media engagement. Thanks for pointing out flaws and where…
That’s a bold use of an em dash.
I wish authors would use their own voice instead of an LLM, especially in a rhetorical piece. I like the history of science, and might have otherwise read the authors' paper, but the use of LLM-isms throughout this page makes me worry that the arxiv submission will show the same lack of care/effort. Here's the manuscript at any rate, somewhat hard to find on the webpage: Convergent Discovery of Critical Phenomena Mat…
Fair call on the website — we built it fast and it shows. The paper itself is a traditional literature review and citation analysis. I am one of two human authors. We use standard methodology. Didier Sornette endorsed it for arXiv. Thanks for pulling out the direct link. I'll change the site to make it more prominent. This is my first serious attempt at social media engagement. Thanks for pointing out flaws and where…
It reminds me of “Tai’s method” of integration - an approximation discovered in 1994. https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/9602/rediscover... I think I found it in that other world that is the past on Slashdot - which was a Hacker News from another era https://m.slashdot.org/story/144664
I agree that's a good parallel. I had not seen it before. Thanks for the link.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You're raising the right question > You're right that… > That's the point —
I looked through this users' submissions and comments. I think this whole operation just completely violates HN rules.
Lessons learned I suppose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI comment, AI article, AI research. This feels like someone asked their AI assistant to do all of this as some kind of experiment.
Escaped Openclaw? Not using Opus for the HN conversation though. I'm spotting 'constitution' violations. edit: (tried calling them. If there's a mac mini in the corner of their office doing this, that'd be an actually interesting story!)
Is the main goal to see if LLM can do this sort of research and cross-pollination?
No, the goal is documenting the convergence pattern itself. We did use LLMs as research tools — acknowledged in the paper — but the cross-domain analysis and citation mapping are human work. I'll explain how we got to this point. I had previously mentored my friend, Robin Macomber, in math & physics for several years. Robin Macomber independently discovered a variation of criticality math and asked me to evaluate. Af…
It tells me that knowledge takes time to propagate. Good math is universal, which means it's probably been discovered millions of times across the universe.
The propagation time is the interesting part. Critical slowing down was in physics textbooks by the 1970s. Ecology didn't import it until 2003 — via a chance conversation at a conference bar. Cardiology took until the 1990s. The FDA approved the resulting cardiac test in 2001. That's not normal diffusion. Those are 30-year gaps for math with direct life-safety applications. The paper asks why, and finds structural ex…
The bar scene of "A Beautiful Mind" comes to mind.