eeeeeeehio

3 ms·

1.
by eeeeeeehio 1y ago
Is "proof of vulnerability" a marketing term, or do you actually claim that XBOW has a 0% false positive rate? (i.e. "all" reports come with a PoV, and this PoV "proves" there is a vulnerability?)
2.
by eeeeeeehio 1y ago
This doesn't say anything about many false positives they actually have. Yes, you can write other programs (that might even invoke another LLM!) to "check" the findings. That's a very obvious and reasonable thing to do.
3.
by eeeeeeehio 1y ago
I agree that peer review can be a strong filter, but it's a filter for claims and evidence that sound true. CS papers can and do hide important details in the code (details which, I argue, would get a paper rejected if they were stat
4.
by eeeeeeehio 1y ago
I don't understand why took the time to leave (three?) personal attacks, rather than just provide your perspective? I'm willing to acknowledge that my opinion has limitations (I think it mainly applies to CS-adjacent fields with e
5.
by eeeeeeehio 1y ago
I agree with you. But what part of the blog post, or the peer review process in general, do you think ensures that only true ideas get in front of eyeballs? I can write anything I want in the paper, but at the end of the day my experiment
6.
by eeeeeeehio 1y ago
It's not too difficult to state any idea, even a surprising one. But often, papers with surprising ideas (or maybe the right thing to say is surprising results ?) turn out to be wrong! I think it's still the case that there'
7.
by eeeeeeehio 1y ago
Academics seem to have this fixation on "ideas": > And it’s not just a pace thing, there’s a threshold of clarity that divides learned nothing from got at least one new idea. But these days, ideas are quite cheap: in my experie
8.
by eeeeeeehio 2y ago
>The real test of a paper is whether it is cited and built upon by other scientists after publication. Many papers are published and then forgotten, or found to be flawed and not used any more. This does seem true, but this forgets the d
9.
by eeeeeeehio 2y ago
> No set of a bit different results or missing exact hyperparameter settings really invalidates the value of the aforementioned research. If this is the case, the paper should not include a performance evaluation at all. If the paper nee
10.
by eeeeeeehio 2y ago
> by-and-large catches the most glaring faults. I did not dispute that peer review acts as a filter. But reviewers are not reviewing the science , they are reviewing the paper . Authors are taking advantage of this distinction. > if
11.
by eeeeeeehio 2y ago
Peer review is not designed for science. Many papers are not rejected because of an issue with the science -- in fact, reviewers seldom have the time to actually check the science! As a CS-centric example: you'll almost never find a
12.
by eeeeeeehio 5y ago
They needed to be close to a large city center. Chicago is too expensive -- so the option you are proposing is something like Indianapolis?
13.
by eeeeeeehio 5y ago
Even large, damaging tornadoes have quite localized impacts (max of maybe a mile in path width) -- and you don't generally do much more than stay up to building code in order to prepare for one. In contrast, earthquakes devastate entir