4 ms·

I am not sure there are many significant science breakthroughs that aren't basically built on a 'full communist' (publicly funded) model. There is a very signi

by vid 3y ago

I am not sure there are many significant science breakthroughs that aren't basically built on a 'full communist' (publicly funded) model. There is a very significant tension between making all works that are produced on the back of giants all the way down free (practically speaking, everything, unless there are significant works developed by feral people), vs keeping individuals fed and happy, vs giving corporations so much power they only serve themselves. I think the benefits of saying any significant development must at least publish its information metadata including descriptions has too many benefits from any perspective to not be supported, and I'm not sure it'd be that expensive if its incorporated in existing systems. It would create its own network effects.

sgt101 3y ago
I see where you are coming from. I think that there is a coupled issue that we are going to have to sort out as a society very soon which is that science / publishing is busily disintegrating under the weight of publication counts. I've noticed two things this year, arxiv has become the target for many teams in a rush to get priority and make an impact while some insight is still part of the zeitgeist and the twitterarti hasn't moved on. This is because people have got used to the idea of things going "viral" and getting citations and impact because of fame - not significance. None of this is peer reviewed, some of it is bullsh*t. There is no penalty for the bullshit, and folks know it. The second is that I am getting lots of citations on work I did a long time ago. I think that some of this is genuinely because that work is now more relevant and people are trying to do the things that we did with (effectively) bits of stick and good hopes with their shiny supercomputers, but I am vain. In reality these papers are getting cited because the paper mill machines have figured out that they look more genuine by sticking them in as a slightly obscure but relevant reference. Both of these things are part of the collapse of trust and communication in publishing. It's not just compsci - there were 28k publications in astronomy last year. My cousin is a cell biologist and when we had a few drinks she told me that her her peers flat out don't trust publications and keep a share a list of authors that are trustworthy - if you don't have the list and aren't on it, you probably don't know it exists. This is the only way that they can avoid losing months trying to use techniques that are just lies. So we do need a way of capturing and reframing this knowledge and the current system of peer review isn't it. Maybe LLM's can help us, but we have to set them up to make the dominant strategy honesty and parsimony in sharing - so that the font of knowledge isn't a pool of crap.
- davidy123 3y ago
  Hmm I wonder if that's also because many more people are involved, which is a good thing. After all, the Web started as a research system, the more it returns to that the better. Intuitively I'd think LLMs/other algos could help since they can generalize, extract uniqueness, identify power laws, though that will be possibly gamed, that also helps create more robust algorithms. And it has a fascinating relevance to all works of society.

by vid 3y ago

sgt101 3y ago

I see where you are coming from. I think that there is a coupled issue that we are going to have to sort out as a society very soon which is that science / publishing is busily disintegrating under the weight of publication counts. I've noticed two things this year, arxiv has become the target for many teams in a rush to get priority and make an impact while some insight is still part of the zeitgeist and the twitterarti hasn't moved on. This is because people have got used to the idea of things going "viral" and getting citations and impact because of fame - not significance. None of this is peer reviewed, some of it is bullsh*t. There is no penalty for the bullshit, and folks know it. The second is that I am getting lots of citations on work I did a long time ago. I think that some of this is genuinely because that work is now more relevant and people are trying to do the things that we did with (effectively) bits of stick and good hopes with their shiny supercomputers, but I am vain. In reality these papers are getting cited because the paper mill machines have figured out that they look more genuine by sticking them in as a slightly obscure but relevant reference. Both of these things are part of the collapse of trust and communication in publishing. It's not just compsci - there were 28k publications in astronomy last year. My cousin is a cell biologist and when we had a few drinks she told me that her her peers flat out don't trust publications and keep a share a list of authors that are trustworthy - if you don't have the list and aren't on it, you probably don't know it exists. This is the only way that they can avoid losing months trying to use techniques that are just lies. So we do need a way of capturing and reframing this knowledge and the current system of peer review isn't it. Maybe LLM's can help us, but we have to set them up to make the dominant strategy honesty and parsimony in sharing - so that the font of knowledge isn't a pool of crap.

davidy123 3y ago
Hmm I wonder if that's also because many more people are involved, which is a good thing. After all, the Web started as a research system, the more it returns to that the better. Intuitively I'd think LLMs/other algos could help since they can generalize, extract uniqueness, identify power laws, though that will be possibly gamed, that also helps create more robust algorithms. And it has a fascinating relevance to all works of society.