Thread

1. lubujackson · 1789675061 · focus · HN ↗

   Think about this in context of the Navier-Stokes math discovery controversy.

   Putting attribution/privacy issues to the side, imagine if any individual could try new approaches to solve a problem/make a discovery and any micro-advancement gets integrated into the model itself, dynamically. This could transform progress from the slow "write a paper, get peer reviewed and published, use published data to inform future work" to a system with a centralized repository of concepts, attempts and results, including failed approaches already tried. How much work do humans waste replicating failed approaches?

   Someone completely random halfway around the world could trigger a prompt that solves a blocker that prevents my solution from working. Who cares about AGI or "can models invent anything" when we could have a system that automatically synthesizes individual human thought into a rich network of aggregate human memory.

   That's the target OpenAI/Anthropic should be evangelizing, not an AI Daddy Overlord or agentic script kiddie hellscape.

   1. vlovich123 · 1789679834 · focus · HN ↗

      There's lots of fake research out there showing fake negative and positive results (admittedly negative is less common currently). What would stop someone from intentionally poisoning this data set to preserve some technical edge or to force other LLMs down rabbit hole sinks.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.