5 ms·

The problem is, there are way too much papers, even if you focus already to some domain, like deep learning. But this seems to be completely open to any topic?

The problem is, there are way too much papers, even if you focus already to some domain, like deep learning. But this seems to be completely open to any topic? For machine learning, https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/ https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/ is currently a good place, or Twitter and following some of the authors you are interested in, or just set some Google Scholar alerts.

MrLeap 4y ago
Hard disagree. If a user submits a paper, chances are it's because they're interested in it. I'm interested in this precisely because I might find myself reading about something in a topic I know nothing about that's interesting to somebody.
eddsh1994 4y ago
It doesn't have to be every paper, just papers people find interesting. HN is even larger, it can be any subjects including papers but still survives.
cobertos 4y ago
Is that a problem though? HN covers a very broad spectrum yet it still functions. Keeping it broad by allowing any topic but raising the bar to require a peer reviewed paper might even decrease the velocity of conversation, allowing better quality conversation. That is, if the lower velocity can allow a community to form still
- ketozhang 4y ago
  It works on HN for at least the reason that HN post titles are often relatable. The same can't be said about paper titles even if you're in the field.
serial_dev 4y ago
I actually enjoyed that the topics are broad. I studied physics, but worked as a software developer my whole life. The topics on the site are stuff that I was interested in at some point in my life: python, GRBs, code style, whatever GPT, thermodynamics and communication. I used to read papers but I don't anymore, and this site lets me keep discovering topics even if I'm not a scientist anymore. I don't need 25 posts a day on gamma ray bursts, I want one post a week and a fun discussion (which isn't there yet).

MrLeap 4y ago

Hard disagree. If a user submits a paper, chances are it's because they're interested in it. I'm interested in this precisely because I might find myself reading about something in a topic I know nothing about that's interesting to somebody.

eddsh1994 4y ago

It doesn't have to be every paper, just papers people find interesting. HN is even larger, it can be any subjects including papers but still survives.

cobertos 4y ago

Is that a problem though? HN covers a very broad spectrum yet it still functions. Keeping it broad by allowing any topic but raising the bar to require a peer reviewed paper might even decrease the velocity of conversation, allowing better quality conversation. That is, if the lower velocity can allow a community to form still

ketozhang 4y ago
It works on HN for at least the reason that HN post titles are often relatable. The same can't be said about paper titles even if you're in the field.

serial_dev 4y ago

I actually enjoyed that the topics are broad. I studied physics, but worked as a software developer my whole life. The topics on the site are stuff that I was interested in at some point in my life: python, GRBs, code style, whatever GPT, thermodynamics and communication. I used to read papers but I don't anymore, and this site lets me keep discovering topics even if I'm not a scientist anymore. I don't need 25 posts a day on gamma ray bursts, I want one post a week and a fun discussion (which isn't there yet).