3 ms·

How much I understand, and how long it takes to get there, depends on a lot on how well-read I already am into a field. I can read and fully understand an ML p

How much I understand, and how long it takes to get there, depends on a lot on how well-read I already am into a field. I can read and fully understand an ML paper in an hour or so. But 6 months ago it took me a day to get through a couple of ML papers and I did not fully grok the mechanics of things like attention heads. I'm more read in material science, chemistry, pharmacology, and cognitive science. Computer science (especially quantum computing, networking, and cryptography), photonics, and pure math are also big areas of interest for me. Anything outside of that wheelhouse will take longer and I'll initially understand less, depending on how distant it is from my stronger subjects.

nerdponx 3y ago
That's quite a range. How do you manage the signal-to-noise ratio? Normally that requires significant familiarity with the field, or a very specific query in mind. For example I only read papers in medicine when I'm researching an actual medical issue that I or someone else is having.
- MacsHeadroom 3y ago
  I follow a lot of highly respected researchers and (research minded) operators in the fields I'm interested in. Very often they post about papers of interest on X/twitter or their personal blogs. I also follow a handful of science communicators on YouTube who do short summary videos of papers of interest (Two-Minute-Papers, Anton Petrov, Sabine Hossenfelder, to name a few). Other times I notice a general trend (ex. increasing discussion of a new paradigm X, more startups raising to work on Y, or a large chunk of talks at an annual conference being variations of Z). Then I ask the forementioned academics and operators in my circle what papers I should read to get a handle on XYZ and/or simply follow the citations. Given the amount of followers a lot of these researchers, operators, and science communicators have, I do not think I'm remotely unique in my efforts.

nerdponx 3y ago

That's quite a range. How do you manage the signal-to-noise ratio? Normally that requires significant familiarity with the field, or a very specific query in mind. For example I only read papers in medicine when I'm researching an actual medical issue that I or someone else is having.

MacsHeadroom 3y ago
I follow a lot of highly respected researchers and (research minded) operators in the fields I'm interested in. Very often they post about papers of interest on X/twitter or their personal blogs. I also follow a handful of science communicators on YouTube who do short summary videos of papers of interest (Two-Minute-Papers, Anton Petrov, Sabine Hossenfelder, to name a few). Other times I notice a general trend (ex. increasing discussion of a new paradigm X, more startups raising to work on Y, or a large chunk of talks at an annual conference being variations of Z). Then I ask the forementioned academics and operators in my circle what papers I should read to get a handle on XYZ and/or simply follow the citations. Given the amount of followers a lot of these researchers, operators, and science communicators have, I do not think I'm remotely unique in my efforts.