7 ms·

I think AI abstracts might work well in most cases because: - they don't have to add anything that wasn't already expressed in the paper, limiting the need for

I think AI abstracts might work well in most cases because: - they don't have to add anything that wasn't already expressed in the paper, limiting the need for creativity - they can use boring and formulaic language because that's how technical writing is done, limiting the need for creativity - they can give a more neutral overview of the research since they aren't an involved entity with emotional stake

yu3zhou4 2y ago
Hello, much thanks for that. AI-generated abstracts might help with filling the platform with a content and as you mentioned, it might be less biased and more objective. This is something people on X also discussed below the launch post [0] and I think you might be right that it's something to do in the near future [0] https://twitter.com/jedmaczan/status/1784889300452077796 https://twitter.com/jedmaczan/status/1784889300452077796
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
croes 2y ago
>they don't have to add anything that wasn't already expressed in the paper, limiting the need for creativity But how could we know they add nothing or missed something important like a not? >they can give a more neutral overview of the research since they aren't an involved entity with emotional stake Biased input = biased output. AI can't help with that.
- squigz 2y ago
  > But how could we know they add nothing or missed something important like a not? Probably by reading it.
  - croes 2y ago
    So I read the original after the abstract? Sounds like more work not less.
    - yu3zhou4 2y ago
      Here's how I picture this, in an optimistic scenario: Once the number of abstracts grows up, we vote up and down on them, so at the end you get the best abstract for each paper, which is supposed to be informative enough to give you a gist of what authors have learned from their research. It should be enough to let you keep an eye on what's going on in research world in real time and also serve as a filter on what paper is worth reading next This is a grand vision of course, right now we have 9 abstracts, but hey, it's still a good starting point! :p
    - squigz 2y ago
      No... the author reads it before publishing...
    - wongarsu 2y ago
      Presumably you read the summaries to find promising papers where you will read the abstract (which you then follow up by reading the figures, conclusion, discussion, introduction, then the rest, bailing out once you think this isn't a paper you want to read further). If at any point you figure out the "community abstract" was misleading you can come back and downvote it. The only issue is if community abstracts get published that make good papers unappealing to read, or if the majority of votes come from people who don't actually engage with the paper
- diffeomorphism 2y ago
  Better than human is good enough. Also, you will be limited by the texts themselves, which can oversell or just make wrong claims. The main advantage I am looking forward to is scaling. As a human there is only so much complex text I can read in 24h. If I can just ask my computer to skim 200 articles and tell me which ones seem worth really digging into that would be awesome.
  - yu3zhou4 2y ago
    Yes! After finishing the most urgent features like sorting, filtering and fixing some bugs, I'd like to make it easy to subscribe to a chosen subject to get a relevant papers to your mailbox
smusamashah 2y ago
Please no. Generated TLDR includes useless fluff in my experience.
- yu3zhou4 2y ago
  The holy grail would be generating TL;DRs with a model trained on the best human-written abstracts. Although - there should be a way to hide machine-generated content, for your convenience, since not everyone might be interested in this content
  - xorcist 2y ago
    No. The holy grail would be TL;DRs written by the actual author, at the time of writing the actual article. No one can better know what the important points are and how to best highlight them. The work of producing a good abstract is a tiny fraction of tiny fraction of the work involved in producing a good article.
    - rsfern 2y ago
      I feel like this is basically already what people who promote their papers on twitter are doing. Other than Twitter or LinkedIn or something (I don’t really use either) I’m not sure there’s really a place for researchers to actually post such a summary where it would be useful, unless everyone starts using this site I guess. Even then, I feel like my time as a researcher would better be spent writing a better abstract, so that this sort of tldr could just be a bolded first or last sentence of a conventional abstract… but I’d be very interested in what other people see as the important or most interesting aspect of my paper Along these lines, I’ve recently taken to using revtex structured abstracts, which are basically a series of topical tldrs covering context, purpose, methods, results, and conclusions. Maybe I’ll experiment with adding a global tldr at the top https://journals.aps.org/prc/edannounce/PhysRevC.84.030001 https://journals.aps.org/prc/edannounce/PhysRevC.84.030001
    - wuj 2y ago
      Community-written abstracts also have their merits too. The author's perspective might be limited to their area of expertise and is therefore biased. That perspective can be normalized by the more nuanced interpretations from the community.
a3w 2y ago
No AI is involved, it is about community written notes. On theoretically any topics, mostly AI topics initially. Author said so, here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40208511 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40208511
UncleMeat 2y ago
When I was writing papers in grad school the abstract was the part I worked on most closely. This is not because of emotional stakes, but because communicating something subtle in few words is hard. IMO, it is the least applicable section of a paper for AI generated content.

yu3zhou4 2y ago

Hello, much thanks for that. AI-generated abstracts might help with filling the platform with a content and as you mentioned, it might be less biased and more objective. This is something people on X also discussed below the launch post [0] and I think you might be right that it's something to do in the near future [0] https://twitter.com/jedmaczan/status/1784889300452077796 https://twitter.com/jedmaczan/status/1784889300452077796

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

croes 2y ago

>they don't have to add anything that wasn't already expressed in the paper, limiting the need for creativity But how could we know they add nothing or missed something important like a not? >they can give a more neutral overview of the research since they aren't an involved entity with emotional stake Biased input = biased output. AI can't help with that.

squigz 2y ago
> But how could we know they add nothing or missed something important like a not? Probably by reading it.
- croes 2y ago
  So I read the original after the abstract? Sounds like more work not less.
  - yu3zhou4 2y ago
    Here's how I picture this, in an optimistic scenario: Once the number of abstracts grows up, we vote up and down on them, so at the end you get the best abstract for each paper, which is supposed to be informative enough to give you a gist of what authors have learned from their research. It should be enough to let you keep an eye on what's going on in research world in real time and also serve as a filter on what paper is worth reading next This is a grand vision of course, right now we have 9 abstracts, but hey, it's still a good starting point! :p
  - squigz 2y ago
    No... the author reads it before publishing...
  - wongarsu 2y ago
    Presumably you read the summaries to find promising papers where you will read the abstract (which you then follow up by reading the figures, conclusion, discussion, introduction, then the rest, bailing out once you think this isn't a paper you want to read further). If at any point you figure out the "community abstract" was misleading you can come back and downvote it. The only issue is if community abstracts get published that make good papers unappealing to read, or if the majority of votes come from people who don't actually engage with the paper
diffeomorphism 2y ago
Better than human is good enough. Also, you will be limited by the texts themselves, which can oversell or just make wrong claims. The main advantage I am looking forward to is scaling. As a human there is only so much complex text I can read in 24h. If I can just ask my computer to skim 200 articles and tell me which ones seem worth really digging into that would be awesome.
- yu3zhou4 2y ago
  Yes! After finishing the most urgent features like sorting, filtering and fixing some bugs, I'd like to make it easy to subscribe to a chosen subject to get a relevant papers to your mailbox

smusamashah 2y ago

Please no. Generated TLDR includes useless fluff in my experience.

yu3zhou4 2y ago
The holy grail would be generating TL;DRs with a model trained on the best human-written abstracts. Although - there should be a way to hide machine-generated content, for your convenience, since not everyone might be interested in this content
- xorcist 2y ago
  No. The holy grail would be TL;DRs written by the actual author, at the time of writing the actual article. No one can better know what the important points are and how to best highlight them. The work of producing a good abstract is a tiny fraction of tiny fraction of the work involved in producing a good article.
  - rsfern 2y ago
    I feel like this is basically already what people who promote their papers on twitter are doing. Other than Twitter or LinkedIn or something (I don’t really use either) I’m not sure there’s really a place for researchers to actually post such a summary where it would be useful, unless everyone starts using this site I guess. Even then, I feel like my time as a researcher would better be spent writing a better abstract, so that this sort of tldr could just be a bolded first or last sentence of a conventional abstract… but I’d be very interested in what other people see as the important or most interesting aspect of my paper Along these lines, I’ve recently taken to using revtex structured abstracts, which are basically a series of topical tldrs covering context, purpose, methods, results, and conclusions. Maybe I’ll experiment with adding a global tldr at the top https://journals.aps.org/prc/edannounce/PhysRevC.84.030001 https://journals.aps.org/prc/edannounce/PhysRevC.84.030001
  - wuj 2y ago
    Community-written abstracts also have their merits too. The author's perspective might be limited to their area of expertise and is therefore biased. That perspective can be normalized by the more nuanced interpretations from the community.

a3w 2y ago

No AI is involved, it is about community written notes. On theoretically any topics, mostly AI topics initially. Author said so, here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40208511 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40208511

UncleMeat 2y ago

When I was writing papers in grad school the abstract was the part I worked on most closely. This is not because of emotional stakes, but because communicating something subtle in few words is hard. IMO, it is the least applicable section of a paper for AI generated content.