5 ms·

This Ars Technica article did a good job of answering a lot of the questions I had: https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/06/nanograv-picks-up-signal-of-cosmic-

This Ars Technica article did a good job of answering a lot of the questions I had: https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/06/nanograv-picks-up-signal-of-cosmic-choir-of-supermassive-black-holes/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/06/nanograv-picks-up-si...

Mystery-Machine 3y ago
Thank you! This should be the actual link, not this WP disgrace.
yieldcrv 3y ago
> In this artist’s interpretation Why arent we using midjourney for obligatory space article pictures? World’s most replaceable job award goes to Astronomy editorial artists
- singleshot_ 3y ago
  Me personally? Because I don't know how. You? I have absolutely no idea why you did not do this and I wish you would! It'd be even better if you could make some kind of "Astronomy.com's RSS feed -> yieldcrv's midjourney prompt" but one step at a time.
  - yieldcrv 3y ago
    I’m talking about the linked article above the fold
    - jumpkick 3y ago
      The use of “we” may have confused the commenter.
- MattRix 3y ago
  There are many reasons, but two of the biggest are that AI art can’t be copyrighted, and that using AI art is immoral. You may disagree with the second point but the fact is that it’s a very common viewpoint. To me it’s especially clear that using AI to make art is immoral when you use it for a purpose that you would have previously hired a human artist for. Harvesting work from artists without permission and then using that to replace them is pretty scummy.
  - kneebonian 3y ago
    I agree and quite frankly it's a travesty and a moral failing of society with all the horseshoers that are now in the unemployment line because those damn automobiles and Mr. Ford.
    - chickenchicken 3y ago
      Let’s see the art then when it’s not trained on the artists work.
      - yieldcrv 3y ago
        Adobe’s AI image model uses their own licensed photo set and Adobe Stock Same with Getty’s is that the approved use then?
        MattRix 3y ago
        So I agree those are at least somewhat better from a moral point of view, but people still can’t use those as justification to keep using other models like Midjourney or Stable Diffusion. Now back to the morality of the Getty and Adobe models: did those artists know their work was going to be used for training AI art models? From what I understand there are many artists who licensed their art to Adobe Stock who are upset that their work is being used for this purpose. Keep in mind this is a usage of the art that literally didn’t exist when the artists licensed their art to Adobe. I would argue it’s a fundamentally different use case.
        yieldcrv 3y ago
        so the goalpost would be for artists and photographers to license their work specifically for being part of a training set? and once that’s done all arguments disintegrate as people stop going to artists and photographers anymore either way?
        MattRix 3y ago
asciii 3y ago
I agree! I just learned the author is also married to Sean Carroll
- andreareina 3y ago
  There's a joint talk by the two of them at the (IIRC) Royal Institution available on YouTube
raattgift 3y ago
If you are looking for something with a little more heft there is https://astrobites.org/2023/06/28/drop-the-bass-evidence-for-a-gravitational-wave-background-from-a-galaxy-sized-detector/ https://astrobites.org/2023/06/28/drop-the-bass-evidence-for... Astrobites articles are usually written by post-grad students working in the relevant area, with the writing level targeted at undergrad astrophysics students. This one was written by NANOGrav collab members, all (or at least most) of whom directly worked on the results that will be all over the press today and tomorrow, and maybe hits a level for an advanced undergrad student or so.
gammarator 3y ago
Also the Ars article links to the actual papers, which should really be standard practice. The journal these papers are published in is open access: no paywall.
- TechBro8615 3y ago
  I can't stand when MSM news sites use links with anchor text that appears to direct you to some underlying source material, but with an href that actually just takes you to another article on their website.
  - ryanSrich 3y ago
    Blame google.
- raattgift 3y ago
  Huh, this turned into a wee-hours rant. Sorry. I hope the extra information in it makes up for that. The Ars article focused on the NANOGrav raft of papers; NANOGrav is just one of the several pulsar timing array collaborations that are in this synchronized un-embargoing of papers. There is substantial overlap between, say, the NANOGrav papers in the Ars Technica article and the joint InPTA/EPTA set which includes https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.16225 https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.16225 https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.16214 https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.16214 and https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.16226 https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.16226 but also enough non-overlap to encourage reading all of them (and to refresh one's foundational knowledge by consulting e.g. Burke-Spolaor et al 2019 "The astrophysics of nanohertz gravitational waves", <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00159-019-0115-7 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00159-019-0115-7>). Unfortunately I find myself griping about a focus on -- to be rude -- only the USA-based-institutions-dominated collaboration (<https://nanograv.org/collaboration/partner-institutions https://nanograv.org/collaboration/partner-institutions>, although of course there are non-USA and non-North American institutions and researchers in that collab too). Relatively USA-institution-light collabs will chase press attention in different markets and in different ways, of course, but there is scant sign of them in the Ars article (which at least names and links to IPTA) or in the WaPo one (which only lists "Europe, India, Australia and China", not naming the actual collabs). The inter-collab two year plan on synchronization of paper releases (the "3P+ agreement") itself is something of a story; I wonder if it's going to get much attention in anyone's press. That said, I don't mind either Ouellette's or Achenbach & Jaggard's reporting. I think they serve amateur enthusiasts well enough that their summaries of the results and science don't need to be nitpicked. Other than that both articles use the unhelpful cliché "fabric of space[-]time" (the latter also has "fabric of the cosmos", "fabric of space and time", because variety is important right?), grrrrrrrr.
dredmorbius 3y ago
Please in future email mods suggesting a URL swap: hn@ycombinator.com They can and do replace submitted URLs under numerous conditions, including not only clickbait but superior articles. I'll do so here, though being ~15 h after initial submission, it's largely a moot point. Ranting over poor link quality in the thread itself is not useful in this regard.

Mystery-Machine 3y ago

Thank you! This should be the actual link, not this WP disgrace.

yieldcrv 3y ago

> In this artist’s interpretation Why arent we using midjourney for obligatory space article pictures? World’s most replaceable job award goes to Astronomy editorial artists

singleshot_ 3y ago
Me personally? Because I don't know how. You? I have absolutely no idea why you did not do this and I wish you would! It'd be even better if you could make some kind of "Astronomy.com's RSS feed -> yieldcrv's midjourney prompt" but one step at a time.
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  I’m talking about the linked article above the fold
  - jumpkick 3y ago
    The use of “we” may have confused the commenter.
MattRix 3y ago
There are many reasons, but two of the biggest are that AI art can’t be copyrighted, and that using AI art is immoral. You may disagree with the second point but the fact is that it’s a very common viewpoint. To me it’s especially clear that using AI to make art is immoral when you use it for a purpose that you would have previously hired a human artist for. Harvesting work from artists without permission and then using that to replace them is pretty scummy.
- kneebonian 3y ago
  I agree and quite frankly it's a travesty and a moral failing of society with all the horseshoers that are now in the unemployment line because those damn automobiles and Mr. Ford.
  - chickenchicken 3y ago
    Let’s see the art then when it’s not trained on the artists work.
    - yieldcrv 3y ago
      Adobe’s AI image model uses their own licensed photo set and Adobe Stock Same with Getty’s is that the approved use then?
      - MattRix 3y ago
        So I agree those are at least somewhat better from a moral point of view, but people still can’t use those as justification to keep using other models like Midjourney or Stable Diffusion. Now back to the morality of the Getty and Adobe models: did those artists know their work was going to be used for training AI art models? From what I understand there are many artists who licensed their art to Adobe Stock who are upset that their work is being used for this purpose. Keep in mind this is a usage of the art that literally didn’t exist when the artists licensed their art to Adobe. I would argue it’s a fundamentally different use case.
        yieldcrv 3y ago
        so the goalpost would be for artists and photographers to license their work specifically for being part of a training set? and once that’s done all arguments disintegrate as people stop going to artists and photographers anymore either way?
        MattRix 3y ago

asciii 3y ago

I agree! I just learned the author is also married to Sean Carroll

andreareina 3y ago
There's a joint talk by the two of them at the (IIRC) Royal Institution available on YouTube

raattgift 3y ago

If you are looking for something with a little more heft there is https://astrobites.org/2023/06/28/drop-the-bass-evidence-for-a-gravitational-wave-background-from-a-galaxy-sized-detector/ https://astrobites.org/2023/06/28/drop-the-bass-evidence-for... Astrobites articles are usually written by post-grad students working in the relevant area, with the writing level targeted at undergrad astrophysics students. This one was written by NANOGrav collab members, all (or at least most) of whom directly worked on the results that will be all over the press today and tomorrow, and maybe hits a level for an advanced undergrad student or so.

gammarator 3y ago

Also the Ars article links to the actual papers, which should really be standard practice. The journal these papers are published in is open access: no paywall.

TechBro8615 3y ago
I can't stand when MSM news sites use links with anchor text that appears to direct you to some underlying source material, but with an href that actually just takes you to another article on their website.
- ryanSrich 3y ago
  Blame google.
raattgift 3y ago
Huh, this turned into a wee-hours rant. Sorry. I hope the extra information in it makes up for that. The Ars article focused on the NANOGrav raft of papers; NANOGrav is just one of the several pulsar timing array collaborations that are in this synchronized un-embargoing of papers. There is substantial overlap between, say, the NANOGrav papers in the Ars Technica article and the joint InPTA/EPTA set which includes https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.16225 https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.16225 https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.16214 https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.16214 and https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.16226 https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.16226 but also enough non-overlap to encourage reading all of them (and to refresh one's foundational knowledge by consulting e.g. Burke-Spolaor et al 2019 "The astrophysics of nanohertz gravitational waves", <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00159-019-0115-7 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00159-019-0115-7>). Unfortunately I find myself griping about a focus on -- to be rude -- only the USA-based-institutions-dominated collaboration (<https://nanograv.org/collaboration/partner-institutions https://nanograv.org/collaboration/partner-institutions>, although of course there are non-USA and non-North American institutions and researchers in that collab too). Relatively USA-institution-light collabs will chase press attention in different markets and in different ways, of course, but there is scant sign of them in the Ars article (which at least names and links to IPTA) or in the WaPo one (which only lists "Europe, India, Australia and China", not naming the actual collabs). The inter-collab two year plan on synchronization of paper releases (the "3P+ agreement") itself is something of a story; I wonder if it's going to get much attention in anyone's press. That said, I don't mind either Ouellette's or Achenbach & Jaggard's reporting. I think they serve amateur enthusiasts well enough that their summaries of the results and science don't need to be nitpicked. Other than that both articles use the unhelpful cliché "fabric of space[-]time" (the latter also has "fabric of the cosmos", "fabric of space and time", because variety is important right?), grrrrrrrr.

dredmorbius 3y ago

Please in future email mods suggesting a URL swap: hn@ycombinator.com They can and do replace submitted URLs under numerous conditions, including not only clickbait but superior articles. I'll do so here, though being ~15 h after initial submission, it's largely a moot point. Ranting over poor link quality in the thread itself is not useful in this regard.