I am a PhD student at Stanford (focusing on AI/learning algorithms for robotics manipulation) and happened to retweet this article, so perhaps I can give my per

I am a PhD student at Stanford (focusing on AI/learning algorithms for robotics manipulation) and happened to retweet this article, so perhaps I can give my perspective. This is what I tweeted about this: "Neat discussion of benefits of this here platform for scientists / researchers. Personally I was pretty mystified with its popularity til trying it and finding it useful, so this might be helpful for like-minded ppl. But, imo it's really mostly a great way to keep up w news. https://t.co/J3aLAh56W3" https://t.co/J3aLAh56W3" Really, don't knock it til you try it. As I said in a reply on here, the biggest benefit is being able to keep up with neat new papers from researchers you think do cool work. Just after that first tweet I just happened to see this from a researcher at Google: "New from Google Research! REALM: https://t.co/kS2oTyxAAj https://t.co/kS2oTyxAAj We pretrain an LM that sparsely attends over all of Wikipedia as extra context. We backprop through a latent retrieval step on 13M docs. Yields new SOTA results for open domain QA, breaking 40 on NaturalQuestions-Open! https://t.co/DYDFX69Td8" https://t.co/DYDFX69Td8" And I retweeted it with a comment that it's cool (and read the paper to understand a bit more) and now follow that researcher. Like any big platform, Twitter can be used in bad ways (engaging in drama, constantly looking at it instead of working coughmuch like HNcough, etc.), and it can be used in many good ways. I was pleasantly surprised with how useful it actually is, personally. That being said... much of the content of this article is kinda weird, it's not like this is that complicated... I guess the intent is to speak to more senior researchers, but it does come off weird.