3 ms·
> People overestimate the value of "grand developments", and underestimate the value of actually knowing - in this case actually knowing how well something work
by aleph_minus_one 3y ago
> People overestimate the value of "grand developments", and underestimate the value of actually knowing - in this case actually knowing how well something works, even if it is as simple as a prompt.
I think this depends a lot on the "culture" of the subject area. For example in mathematics, it is common that only new results that have been thoroughly worked through are typically "publish-worthy".
- brookst 3y agoWouldn’t the “thoroughly worked through” part be analogous to extensive measurements of a prompt?
- aleph_minus_one 3y agoLet me put it this way: you can expect that a typical good math paper means working on the problem for, I would say, half a year (often much longer). I have a feeling that most papers that involve extensive measurements of prompts do not involve 1/2 to 1 year of careful - hypothesis building - experimental design - doing experiments - analyzing the experimental results - doing new experiments - analyzing in which sense the collected data support the hypothesis or not - ... work.