Thread

1. dcow · 1789828104 · focus · HN ↗

   I can understand why the author feels bitter but it still feels juvenile to me. Certainly both Jev and Laya are based on the research of countless prior papers and academics. Diogo decided to build a product out of the concept. The author didn't. Publishing research papers and model weights is probably part of the problem--it feels academic. If you look at the author's profile they focus on applying AI to healthcare. Not selling general AI type safety to AI pilled companies and devs. There's a big difference there. Whether that's good or bad you can argue all day. But for the author to expect otherwise is pretty weird. I do applaud them for not stewing too much on it and trying to do something about it, though.

   1. tomsyouruncle · 1789830003 · focus · HN ↗

      I’m not filled with confidence when the author’s first paper takes an RL approach but then doesn’t use it to change the action taken in the next turn. Seems like simple classification would achieve the same end. And this quote from the paper isn’t overly reassuring:

      “I personally found that this sequential approach captured sales dynamics much more effectively than traditional classification models.”

      <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;2503.23303" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;2503.23303

      1. verdverm · 1789847657 · focus · HN ↗

         this was the period of arxiv history that led to the new vouching system

         that first person phrase stuck out to me, especially given it had plural versions on either side, the author never edited for clarity or consistency

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.