5 ms·

That's also a reason the big labs stopped. Publishing is most valuable to people who have no other way to get the attention of smart strangers. Once you can hir

That's also a reason the big labs stopped. Publishing is most valuable to people who have no other way to get the attention of smart strangers. Once you can hire nearly anyone and everyone already returns your calls, the main remaining effect of publishing is to tell your competitors which things worked. This is what happens to every field as it turns from a science into an industry. Chemists published freely until dyes started being worth money, and then the interesting work moved into company labs and stopped coming out.

teleforce 2mo ago
Which is a very ironic and selfish situation when your business model dependent mostly on model training based on available published data, academic and non-academic.
- ReactiveJelly 2mo ago
  That's why we should enforce copyleft
  - fluoridation 2mo ago
    That has nothing to do with anything. If you publish a copyleft paper, that doesn't compel someone who makes a product based on your paper to publish more papers.
    - fc417fc802 2mo ago
      The GNU RPL (research public license), a viral knowledge license. By reading this paper you are legally obligated to openly publish all vaguely related future research that you perform.
      - fluoridation 2mo ago
        There's already an RPL, incidentally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_Public_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_Public_License Your RPL wouldn't be enforceable. Copyright doesn't deal with abstract ideas passing through people's minds. Even the GPL is kind of in a gray area because the virality feature and its definition of "derivative work" have never been tested in court, to my knowledge. Maybe under contract law, no idea. If nothing else, I'd love to hear a verdict.
        fc417fc802 2mo ago
        Well it was a joke and is obviously quite silly but I believe it would be enforceable to the extent that the licensor could terminate the agreement and sue for damages. If I can agree to pay you not to talk about something (ie an NDA) or not to work in a field (ie a non-compete clause) then why can't I pay you to be required to publish all future work you do in a given area? ("All future work" might well be overly broad; you'd likely have to restrict it to only a few years but I'm no lawyer.) I don't believe the GPL is in a grey area. When you license a work all sorts of strings are commonly attached. Rather IIUC no one has gone out of the way to test the GPL largely because it is clearly within bounds, plus any violation has the potential to be a PR disaster since violations are quite literally examples of looting the commons.
        fluoridation 2mo ago
        >terminate the agreement Meaning what? Claw back the ideas from people's minds? You can terminate the agreement in the sense that you revoke access to the paper, but presumably the person you find in breach has already used the research for something that you find them in breach for. You're kind of closing the gate after the horse has bolted. >sue for damages I honestly have no idea what damages you could claim from not publishing research. I think you would need to set a value ahead of time on the agreement. >If I can agree to pay you not to talk about something (ie an NDA) or not to work in a field (ie a non-compete clause) then why can't I pay you to be required to publish all future work you do in a given area? Not sure why you added the word "pay" to your clauses, but anyway. The reason is that the existing contracts have well-defined boundaries. An NDA stops you from divulging a very specific set of information. A non-compete clause stops you from working in a very specific field. Your proposal has an undefined reach. What counts as research? What counts as "related"? It would seem that if I agree to such a contract, my entire life, both private and professional, after reading the paper is covered by the contract, and anything I do might come under scrutiny. There's never a point when I can go off-duty. "What's that? You read my paper on compression and were working on a side-project that uses compression? Gonna have to see some publication on it." >Rather IIUC no one has gone out of the way to test the GPL largely because it is clearly within bounds No, it's because the status quo is convenient and no one wants to be the first guinea pig. It's definitely not obvious that the terms are legally valid, but it's ambiguous enough that people don't want to test it.
      - Davidzheng 2mo ago
        Sounds dystopian.
        sam_lowry_ 2mo ago
        Pretty much like the patent system sounded at first to commoners.
  - DonHopkins 2mo ago
    Ha ha, I snail mailed RMS a Copyleft (L) sticker in 1984. My handwriting was sloppy so it took him a couple years to figure out what it really meant. https://www.gnu.org/graphics/copyleft-sticker.html https://www.gnu.org/graphics/copyleft-sticker.html From: rms@prep.ai.mit.edu (Richard M. Stallman) Date: 25 June 1986 at 18:45:28 GMT+2 To: a2deh@ai I figured out what a copyleft is. It's the sort of thing that I put on GNU software and manuals. The left-wing version of the copyright that rightists use to exploit the masses. But copyrights are not patents, and the opposite of "patent" is "latent", so we need a Latent Office that protects inventions from the people who claim to have invented them, and issues warnings to patent trolls: LATENT (L) All rights unreserved. This invention may already exist, but hasn’t become obvious yet. Latentleft — publish the invention, conceal the monopoly. Latent Pending — the idea is out there somewhere. Latent Troll — remains dormant until an industry becomes profitable.
  - xhkkffbf 2mo ago
    The patent system is a pretty useful compromise here. The applicants are forced to disclose all knowledge required to practice the craft. They get a 20 year monopoly in return. I realize everyone always wants everything for free, but if you want someone to put the energy into writing up their invention you need to give them an incentive.
- perpetuallunch 2mo ago
  Sure. But they’re not dependent on my research in particular. If I don’t publish, what, as a result of my not publishing, happens to the companies dependent on data & research? Nothing.
- sixtyj 2mo ago
  I had some meeting with non-creative business person, just chatting over coffee. I wondered how much he used from our meeting for his enrichment. Public papers with described research give advance to similar people. They jump over you and in many cases they give nothing back. (Intellectual) greed is everywhere and is cross-border. In case of public papers there is one extra vulnerability - competitor(s) can build anywhere, under the radar. That’s why companies are so cautious about publishing their research…
  - adastra22 2mo ago
    Academics are just as quick to steal ideas. It cuts both ways.
  - aatd86 2mo ago
    It can protect you from someone patenting the same idea though.
    - jmalicki 2mo ago
      I don't understand why from a legal perspective, but it seems like over the last decade or more the tech industry stopped caring about patents. Startups used to talk about their parents and large tech companies would encourage you to file. While people say software patents make no sense, when I've seen cases involving EE, ME, and software patents, the software patents are usually the most likely to hold up in court and get damages. Empirically noone seems to care anymore.
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
baron3dl 2mo ago
i wish more people would publish the things that didn't work. i'd like everything, but the exploration of searched negative space is so wasteful.
- locknitpicker 2mo ago
  > I wish more people would publish the things that didn't work. This would be a pointless endeavour. One of the most basic mantras of science is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". So just because something didn't worked out for you that doesn't mean it doesn't work out for others, or even yourself in the future.
  - don_esteban 2mo ago
    You are talking about a different thing, i.e. you have slipped in a level of abstraction that was not there before: In 'searching a path from A to B in a maze' language: The original statement was: (1) The branch to the left from A is a dead end. Your interpretation: (2) There is no path from A to B. (1) is still very useful (reducing the wasted effort) for those trying to find a path from A to B. The OP's point is that in the current environment only positive results are rewarded (I found the path from A to B!), not the negative ones like (1).
    - locknitpicker 2mo ago
      > The original statement was: (1) The branch to the left from A is a dead end. This is where you get things wrong at a very basic and fundamental level. Just because you failed to explore branch A, that does not mean it is a dead end. It just means you came up empty. That is why science is based on observations and theories: it is based on building up on ideas and what works and can be proven. Otherwise you will left with useless papers such as "Bicycles are a dead end because I tried to ride one and I fell".
      - don_esteban 2mo ago
        You are assuming incompetence on the scientist saying that the branch from the left of A is a dead end. While nobody is perfect, there are numerous perfectly valid scientific negative results. You know, there exist things like impossibility proofs in mathematics and computer science. There are equivalents in other sciences (e.g. if X was true, that would lead to Y that is easily observable and clearly not observed). Sometimes that implication has assumptions that might change once the technology/society changes, other times it holds true regardless. Unicycles are a dead end as a practical transportation, because the bicycles have them beat in every way (except portability). A scientific result would be much more along the lines of 'Bicycles without gears have limited applicability, especially in hilly terrain.'
pfisherman 2mo ago
There are other reasons. One is for career development of your researchers. Another is to be good citizens, in good standing, in the community of scientific researchers. Another is to flex on people and buy class and respectability - to comport oneself as the “old money” does.
thewanderer1983 2mo ago
This academic publish and industry doesn't is an incorrect view. Academics also hold off from publishing groundbreaking science in order to protect their research edge. You shouldn't see this as industry bad as driven by profits and academia is free from career incentives and money.
fc417fc802 2mo ago
> Chemists published freely until dyes started being worth money Notably this is exactly what patents are intended to combat. And while US IP law is clearly very broken it does at least largely accomplish this stated goal. Much (but certainly not all) industrial chemistry has made it into the academic literature. Not that the same logic necessarily applies to AI research (ie algorithms aka math and their implementations). And I'm actually happy about that because the cost of doing the research is so much lower. There's a long list of reasons that the average person living in a residential area can't do industrial chemistry as a hobby. To your dye example, yttrium indium manganese blue was the first commercially viable inorganic blue pigment discovered in ~200 years, is the only known environmentally safe one, and was openly published in the literature. It's also under an exclusive license. (TBF though unless the chemical is unusually difficult to synthesize not publishing would be rather pointless in this day and age given the utterly absurd capabilities of modern analytical techniques.)
- thayne 2mo ago
  It depends on the field, and to some extent on the particular patent officer assigned, but one of the failings of the US patent system is many patents don't actually provide enough details to reproduce the result. And even if they do they don't (usually) include ancillary information like the discovery process, properties of the invention etc.
- YeGoblynQueenne 2mo ago
  >> To your dye example, yttrium indium manganese blue was the first commercially viable inorganic blue pigment discovered in ~200 years, is the only known environmentally safe one, and was openly published in the literature. It's also under an exclusive license. Gee, I wonder what was wrong with the previous blue pigments and why it was so important to have this one under an exclusive license. Cobalt blue is a blue pigment made by sintering cobalt(II) oxide with aluminium(III) oxide (alumina) at 1200 °C. Chemically, cobalt blue pigment is cobalt(II) oxide-aluminium oxide, or cobalt(II) aluminate, CoAl2O4. Cobalt blue is lighter and less intense than the (iron-cyanide based) pigment Prussian blue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt_blue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt_blue Oh right. P.S. Don't lick your brushes.
worldthruword 2mo ago
>> Chemists published freely until dyes started being worth money, and then the interesting work moved into company labs and stopped coming out. I think this also makes the case for Industrial Espionage
SturgeonsLaw 2mo ago
The profit motive is the reason that most of the things that are shit, are shit.
jurgenaut23 2mo ago
Such a biased and utilitarian view. The goal of publishing is to communicate your findings to the scientific community for the sake of advancing our knowledge as a society. Of course you might want to keep _some_ of this knowledge as trade secret, but then don’t claim you are doing research. You are advancing your shareholder’s interests, not that of the broader society.
fakedang 2mo ago
On the contrary, I've found that stuff in the mining industry is actually well published, to the point of replicability (one of our projects is essentially copying the patented design of a well known mining technology company, albeit with some modifications, as the patent will expire next month). Perhaps because the real moat in the industry isn't the technology per se, but the concessions.
adevalois 2mo ago
The startup landscape has also changed noticeable compared to 5 or 10 years ago. A team of smart/credible people could get funding for an idea and build a product + publish, knowing there was a six month lead time for anyone to copy them and ship. These days, the barrier to ship code is zero. People can copy your business over a weekend, so there is much more urgency to establish product market fit and build a “moat”. Publishing timelines are now at odds with the pace of go-to-market and VC funding timelines.
- andy_ppp 2mo ago
  I think in theory this is true but in practice I don't see loads more good apps or products. There's a paradox here I think. I just don't see loads of quality competitors popping up I actually think it makes building something harder because the barrier to entry just gets higher somehow.
  - 9cb14c1ec0 2mo ago
    I think the revolution is more of a gradual thing than an overnight one. New features and more complex apps in days or weeks instead of months. I think the world will be a much different place in 10 years than it is now, but it will be a gradual change rather than the overnight switch flip some AI maximalists would have you believe. At my company, AI has had a huge positive impact in helping us manage technical debt that we just didn't have time to deal with before. This simple thing will have a compounding efficiency and profitability effect over the next several years. The other thing that we have found is that AI coding abilities can crank out features faster than we can provide human support to our customers using said features. We have feature PRs that have been open for months without being merged because our company does not have the human bandwidth to provide support for them. In case you can't tell, we prioritize human support and individual connection with our customers. We actually value them.
    - andy_ppp 2mo ago
      As with all human endeavours, as the tooling gets better the expectation for a launch/product/feature increases dramatically too. I probably do 3-5x the features I used to before AI, yet there's still more to do. I'm not running out of work but making incredible progress on features that save the place I work at weeks and weeks of time every month which frees people up to do more of the other things. It still takes time to build and check and test things though.
epolanski 2mo ago
Publishing is an act of spreading science. The biggest incentive besides the purpose is really fame and tangible results for your academic career. Most AI labs, especially the top private ones, don't have particular incentives to publish their results and findings.
notfromhere 2mo ago
It’s funny because no frontier labs would exist if the Google transformer paper wasn’t published

teleforce 2mo ago

Which is a very ironic and selfish situation when your business model dependent mostly on model training based on available published data, academic and non-academic.

ReactiveJelly 2mo ago
That's why we should enforce copyleft
- fluoridation 2mo ago
  That has nothing to do with anything. If you publish a copyleft paper, that doesn't compel someone who makes a product based on your paper to publish more papers.
  - fc417fc802 2mo ago
    The GNU RPL (research public license), a viral knowledge license. By reading this paper you are legally obligated to openly publish all vaguely related future research that you perform.
    - fluoridation 2mo ago
      There's already an RPL, incidentally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_Public_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_Public_License Your RPL wouldn't be enforceable. Copyright doesn't deal with abstract ideas passing through people's minds. Even the GPL is kind of in a gray area because the virality feature and its definition of "derivative work" have never been tested in court, to my knowledge. Maybe under contract law, no idea. If nothing else, I'd love to hear a verdict.
      - fc417fc802 2mo ago
        Well it was a joke and is obviously quite silly but I believe it would be enforceable to the extent that the licensor could terminate the agreement and sue for damages. If I can agree to pay you not to talk about something (ie an NDA) or not to work in a field (ie a non-compete clause) then why can't I pay you to be required to publish all future work you do in a given area? ("All future work" might well be overly broad; you'd likely have to restrict it to only a few years but I'm no lawyer.) I don't believe the GPL is in a grey area. When you license a work all sorts of strings are commonly attached. Rather IIUC no one has gone out of the way to test the GPL largely because it is clearly within bounds, plus any violation has the potential to be a PR disaster since violations are quite literally examples of looting the commons.
        fluoridation 2mo ago
        >terminate the agreement Meaning what? Claw back the ideas from people's minds? You can terminate the agreement in the sense that you revoke access to the paper, but presumably the person you find in breach has already used the research for something that you find them in breach for. You're kind of closing the gate after the horse has bolted. >sue for damages I honestly have no idea what damages you could claim from not publishing research. I think you would need to set a value ahead of time on the agreement. >If I can agree to pay you not to talk about something (ie an NDA) or not to work in a field (ie a non-compete clause) then why can't I pay you to be required to publish all future work you do in a given area? Not sure why you added the word "pay" to your clauses, but anyway. The reason is that the existing contracts have well-defined boundaries. An NDA stops you from divulging a very specific set of information. A non-compete clause stops you from working in a very specific field. Your proposal has an undefined reach. What counts as research? What counts as "related"? It would seem that if I agree to such a contract, my entire life, both private and professional, after reading the paper is covered by the contract, and anything I do might come under scrutiny. There's never a point when I can go off-duty. "What's that? You read my paper on compression and were working on a side-project that uses compression? Gonna have to see some publication on it." >Rather IIUC no one has gone out of the way to test the GPL largely because it is clearly within bounds No, it's because the status quo is convenient and no one wants to be the first guinea pig. It's definitely not obvious that the terms are legally valid, but it's ambiguous enough that people don't want to test it.
    - Davidzheng 2mo ago
      Sounds dystopian.
      - sam_lowry_ 2mo ago
        Pretty much like the patent system sounded at first to commoners.
- DonHopkins 2mo ago
  Ha ha, I snail mailed RMS a Copyleft (L) sticker in 1984. My handwriting was sloppy so it took him a couple years to figure out what it really meant. https://www.gnu.org/graphics/copyleft-sticker.html https://www.gnu.org/graphics/copyleft-sticker.html From: rms@prep.ai.mit.edu (Richard M. Stallman) Date: 25 June 1986 at 18:45:28 GMT+2 To: a2deh@ai I figured out what a copyleft is. It's the sort of thing that I put on GNU software and manuals. The left-wing version of the copyright that rightists use to exploit the masses. But copyrights are not patents, and the opposite of "patent" is "latent", so we need a Latent Office that protects inventions from the people who claim to have invented them, and issues warnings to patent trolls: LATENT (L) All rights unreserved. This invention may already exist, but hasn’t become obvious yet. Latentleft — publish the invention, conceal the monopoly. Latent Pending — the idea is out there somewhere. Latent Troll — remains dormant until an industry becomes profitable.
- xhkkffbf 2mo ago
  The patent system is a pretty useful compromise here. The applicants are forced to disclose all knowledge required to practice the craft. They get a 20 year monopoly in return. I realize everyone always wants everything for free, but if you want someone to put the energy into writing up their invention you need to give them an incentive.
perpetuallunch 2mo ago
Sure. But they’re not dependent on my research in particular. If I don’t publish, what, as a result of my not publishing, happens to the companies dependent on data & research? Nothing.
sixtyj 2mo ago
I had some meeting with non-creative business person, just chatting over coffee. I wondered how much he used from our meeting for his enrichment. Public papers with described research give advance to similar people. They jump over you and in many cases they give nothing back. (Intellectual) greed is everywhere and is cross-border. In case of public papers there is one extra vulnerability - competitor(s) can build anywhere, under the radar. That’s why companies are so cautious about publishing their research…
- adastra22 2mo ago
  Academics are just as quick to steal ideas. It cuts both ways.
- aatd86 2mo ago
  It can protect you from someone patenting the same idea though.
  - jmalicki 2mo ago
    I don't understand why from a legal perspective, but it seems like over the last decade or more the tech industry stopped caring about patents. Startups used to talk about their parents and large tech companies would encourage you to file. While people say software patents make no sense, when I've seen cases involving EE, ME, and software patents, the software patents are usually the most likely to hold up in court and get damages. Empirically noone seems to care anymore.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]

baron3dl 2mo ago

i wish more people would publish the things that didn't work. i'd like everything, but the exploration of searched negative space is so wasteful.

locknitpicker 2mo ago
> I wish more people would publish the things that didn't work. This would be a pointless endeavour. One of the most basic mantras of science is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". So just because something didn't worked out for you that doesn't mean it doesn't work out for others, or even yourself in the future.
- don_esteban 2mo ago
  You are talking about a different thing, i.e. you have slipped in a level of abstraction that was not there before: In 'searching a path from A to B in a maze' language: The original statement was: (1) The branch to the left from A is a dead end. Your interpretation: (2) There is no path from A to B. (1) is still very useful (reducing the wasted effort) for those trying to find a path from A to B. The OP's point is that in the current environment only positive results are rewarded (I found the path from A to B!), not the negative ones like (1).
  - locknitpicker 2mo ago
    > The original statement was: (1) The branch to the left from A is a dead end. This is where you get things wrong at a very basic and fundamental level. Just because you failed to explore branch A, that does not mean it is a dead end. It just means you came up empty. That is why science is based on observations and theories: it is based on building up on ideas and what works and can be proven. Otherwise you will left with useless papers such as "Bicycles are a dead end because I tried to ride one and I fell".
    - don_esteban 2mo ago
      You are assuming incompetence on the scientist saying that the branch from the left of A is a dead end. While nobody is perfect, there are numerous perfectly valid scientific negative results. You know, there exist things like impossibility proofs in mathematics and computer science. There are equivalents in other sciences (e.g. if X was true, that would lead to Y that is easily observable and clearly not observed). Sometimes that implication has assumptions that might change once the technology/society changes, other times it holds true regardless. Unicycles are a dead end as a practical transportation, because the bicycles have them beat in every way (except portability). A scientific result would be much more along the lines of 'Bicycles without gears have limited applicability, especially in hilly terrain.'

pfisherman 2mo ago

There are other reasons. One is for career development of your researchers. Another is to be good citizens, in good standing, in the community of scientific researchers. Another is to flex on people and buy class and respectability - to comport oneself as the “old money” does.

thewanderer1983 2mo ago

This academic publish and industry doesn't is an incorrect view. Academics also hold off from publishing groundbreaking science in order to protect their research edge. You shouldn't see this as industry bad as driven by profits and academia is free from career incentives and money.

fc417fc802 2mo ago

> Chemists published freely until dyes started being worth money Notably this is exactly what patents are intended to combat. And while US IP law is clearly very broken it does at least largely accomplish this stated goal. Much (but certainly not all) industrial chemistry has made it into the academic literature. Not that the same logic necessarily applies to AI research (ie algorithms aka math and their implementations). And I'm actually happy about that because the cost of doing the research is so much lower. There's a long list of reasons that the average person living in a residential area can't do industrial chemistry as a hobby. To your dye example, yttrium indium manganese blue was the first commercially viable inorganic blue pigment discovered in ~200 years, is the only known environmentally safe one, and was openly published in the literature. It's also under an exclusive license. (TBF though unless the chemical is unusually difficult to synthesize not publishing would be rather pointless in this day and age given the utterly absurd capabilities of modern analytical techniques.)

thayne 2mo ago
It depends on the field, and to some extent on the particular patent officer assigned, but one of the failings of the US patent system is many patents don't actually provide enough details to reproduce the result. And even if they do they don't (usually) include ancillary information like the discovery process, properties of the invention etc.
YeGoblynQueenne 2mo ago
>> To your dye example, yttrium indium manganese blue was the first commercially viable inorganic blue pigment discovered in ~200 years, is the only known environmentally safe one, and was openly published in the literature. It's also under an exclusive license. Gee, I wonder what was wrong with the previous blue pigments and why it was so important to have this one under an exclusive license. Cobalt blue is a blue pigment made by sintering cobalt(II) oxide with aluminium(III) oxide (alumina) at 1200 °C. Chemically, cobalt blue pigment is cobalt(II) oxide-aluminium oxide, or cobalt(II) aluminate, CoAl2O4. Cobalt blue is lighter and less intense than the (iron-cyanide based) pigment Prussian blue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt_blue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt_blue Oh right. P.S. Don't lick your brushes.

worldthruword 2mo ago

>> Chemists published freely until dyes started being worth money, and then the interesting work moved into company labs and stopped coming out. I think this also makes the case for Industrial Espionage

SturgeonsLaw 2mo ago

The profit motive is the reason that most of the things that are shit, are shit.

jurgenaut23 2mo ago

Such a biased and utilitarian view. The goal of publishing is to communicate your findings to the scientific community for the sake of advancing our knowledge as a society. Of course you might want to keep _some_ of this knowledge as trade secret, but then don’t claim you are doing research. You are advancing your shareholder’s interests, not that of the broader society.

fakedang 2mo ago

On the contrary, I've found that stuff in the mining industry is actually well published, to the point of replicability (one of our projects is essentially copying the patented design of a well known mining technology company, albeit with some modifications, as the patent will expire next month). Perhaps because the real moat in the industry isn't the technology per se, but the concessions.

adevalois 2mo ago

The startup landscape has also changed noticeable compared to 5 or 10 years ago. A team of smart/credible people could get funding for an idea and build a product + publish, knowing there was a six month lead time for anyone to copy them and ship. These days, the barrier to ship code is zero. People can copy your business over a weekend, so there is much more urgency to establish product market fit and build a “moat”. Publishing timelines are now at odds with the pace of go-to-market and VC funding timelines.

andy_ppp 2mo ago
I think in theory this is true but in practice I don't see loads more good apps or products. There's a paradox here I think. I just don't see loads of quality competitors popping up I actually think it makes building something harder because the barrier to entry just gets higher somehow.
- 9cb14c1ec0 2mo ago
  I think the revolution is more of a gradual thing than an overnight one. New features and more complex apps in days or weeks instead of months. I think the world will be a much different place in 10 years than it is now, but it will be a gradual change rather than the overnight switch flip some AI maximalists would have you believe. At my company, AI has had a huge positive impact in helping us manage technical debt that we just didn't have time to deal with before. This simple thing will have a compounding efficiency and profitability effect over the next several years. The other thing that we have found is that AI coding abilities can crank out features faster than we can provide human support to our customers using said features. We have feature PRs that have been open for months without being merged because our company does not have the human bandwidth to provide support for them. In case you can't tell, we prioritize human support and individual connection with our customers. We actually value them.
  - andy_ppp 2mo ago
    As with all human endeavours, as the tooling gets better the expectation for a launch/product/feature increases dramatically too. I probably do 3-5x the features I used to before AI, yet there's still more to do. I'm not running out of work but making incredible progress on features that save the place I work at weeks and weeks of time every month which frees people up to do more of the other things. It still takes time to build and check and test things though.

epolanski 2mo ago

Publishing is an act of spreading science. The biggest incentive besides the purpose is really fame and tangible results for your academic career. Most AI labs, especially the top private ones, don't have particular incentives to publish their results and findings.

notfromhere 2mo ago

It’s funny because no frontier labs would exist if the Google transformer paper wasn’t published