7 ms·
It’s weird how random people can submit non peer reviewed articles to preprint repos. Why not just use a blog site, medium or substack?
by NewsaHackO 1y ago
It’s weird how random people can submit non peer reviewed articles to preprint repos. Why not just use a blog site, medium or substack?
- jxjnskkzxxhx 1y ago> Why not just use a blog site, medium or substack? Because it looks more credible, obviously. In a sense it's cargo cult science: people observe this is the style of science, and so copy just the style; to a casual observer it appears to be science.
- nickpsecurity 1y agoProfessional science has been doing that a long time if one considers that many published works were never independently tested and replicated. If it's a scientist, and uses scientific descriptions, many just repeat it from there.
- jxjnskkzxxhx 1y agoOverly reductionistic. At the same time a proper rebuttal isn't worth the time for someone who's clearly not looking to understand.
- NeutralCrane 1y agoPublication in a journal is not a requirement for the scientific method. If anything, the insistence that something not published in a scientific journal is not science is, itself, cargo cult scientism.
- billfruit 1y agoWhy the gatekeeping. Only what is said matters, not who says it.
- BlarfMcFlarf 1y agoPeer review specifically checks that what is being said passes scrutiny by experts in the field, so it is very much about what is being said.
- SJC_Hacker 1y agoThey why isn't it double blind ?
- BDPW 1y agoOften reviewing is executed double blind for exactly this reason. This can be difficult in small fields where you can more-or-less guess who's working on what, but the intent is definitely there.
- mcswell 1y agoI've reviewed computational linguistics papers in the past (I'm retired now, and the field is changing out from under me, so I don't do it any more). But all the reviews I did were double blind.
- tsimionescu 1y agoThat's a cute fantasy, but it doesn't work beyond a tiny scale. Credentials are critical to help filter data - 8 billion people all publishing random info can't be listened to.
- SoftTalker 1y ago> 8 billion people all publishing random info can't be listened to. Yet it's what we train LLMs on.
- tsimionescu 1y agoIt's what we train LLMs on to make them learn language, a thing that all healthy adult human beings are experts on using. It's definitely not what we train LLMs on if we want them to do science.
- birn559 1y agoWhich are known to be unreliable beyond basic things that most people that have some relevant experience get right anyway.
- verbify 1y agoThere's a paper Textbooks are all you need - https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.11644 https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.11644 > We introduce phi-1, a new large language model for code, with significantly smaller size than competing models: phi-1 is a Transformer-based model with 1.3B parameters, trained for 4 days on 8 A100s, using a selection of ``textbook quality" data from the web (6B tokens) and synthetically generated textbooks and exercises with GPT-3.5 (1B tokens). Despite this small scale, phi-1 attains pass@1 accuracy 50.6% on HumanEval and 55.5% on MBPP. It also displays surprising emergent properties compared to phi-1-base, our model before our finetuning stage on a dataset of coding exercises, and phi-1-small, a smaller model with 350M parameters trained with the same pipeline as phi-1 that still achieves 45% on HumanEval We train on the internet because, for example, I speak a fairly niche English dialect influenced by Hebrew, Yiddish and Aramaic, and there are no digitised textbooks or dictionaries that cover this language. I assume the base weights of models are still using high quality materials.
- birn559 1y agoIf what is said has any merit can be very hard to judge beyond things that are well known. In addition, peer reviews are anonymous for both sides (as far as possible).
- watwut 1y agoYeah, that is why 4chan became famous for being the source of trustworthy and valuable scientific research. /s
- billfruit 1y agoGitHub works on a similar model, without any barrier of entry, and it works well.
- randomNumber7 1y agoScience is in a strange state, but I don't think the current HN audience (of inexperienced ai script kids) is the crowd to have a valuable discussion about it.
- jxjnskkzxxhx 1y ago[flagged]
- groceryheist 1y agoTwo reasons: 1. Preprint servers create DOIs, making works better citable. 2. Preprint servers are archives, ensuring works remain accessible. My blog website won't outlive me for long. What happened to geocities could also happen to medium.
- SoftTalker 1y agoWho would want to cite a random unreviewed preprint?
- mitthrowaway2 1y agoYou don't get a free pass to not cite relevant prior literature just because it's in the form of an unreviewed preprint. If you're writing a paper about a longstanding math problem and the solution gets published on 4chan, you still need to cite it.
- NooneAtAll3 1y agotbf, you cite the paper that described and discussed said solution in the more appropriate form
- mousethatroared 1y agoYou cite the form you encountered and if you're any good of a researcher you will have encountered the original 4chan anon post, Borges' short story, or Chomsky's linguistic paper.
- hansvm 1y agoIn some fields, sure, cite the 4chan source, ideally with an archived link. Pure math tends to be much more conservative in citations than other fields though, and even when writing a paper about a longstanding math problem you wouldn't necessarily bother to include existing solutions. You reference the things you actually used, and even then you assume some common background knowledge for your audience and don't reference every little undergrad topology theorem or whatever. The point is to be honest with the reader about what was helpful for this work in particular, both to properly attribute things you actually used and to make any searches based on your work more targeted and fruitful.
- constantcrying 1y ago>It’s weird how random people can submit non peer reviewed articles to preprint repos. It is weird how people use a platform exactly how it is supposed to be used.
- T-A 1y ago> It’s weird how random people can submit non peer reviewed articles to preprint repos. Assuming that you are referring to the Arxiv, they can't: https://info.arxiv.org/help/endorsement.html https://info.arxiv.org/help/endorsement.html
- naveen99 1y agoI would start with github. Arxiv, show hn, twitter, TikTok , Super Bowl ad if you are going for max look at me, i am not wearing diapers effect.