Thread

Nicholas Polson has authored 258 academic papers in 2026 so far

152 points · 110 comments · zaik

buran77 · 1790711232 · focus · HN ↗
> “An Interdisciplinary Synthesis Across Economics, Psychology, Biology, Philosophy, Game Theory, and Spiritual Tradition.”
If one were inclined, they could shorten the title to "AI Synthesis Across Economics, Psychology, Biology, Philosophy, Game Theory, and Spiritual Tradition." Maybe that's an Easter egg.
AI submissions, soon AI reviewers, and shortly after only AI readers.
The guy's name is "nosloP" spelled backwards. Maybe spelled normally it's supposed to signify the opposite.
1. locallost · 1790713057 · focus · HN ↗
  That the name in no slop backwards is too wild to be real, but it's a real person.
  I mean it's everywhere now. I complained already at my workplace multiple times, we get huge Claude generated documents, which people then ask Claude to summarize. I don't mind some of it in principle but people are too lazy now to input all the details so you get a bunch of fantasies that were explicitly ruled out already. It's tiring.
  1. orwin · 1790714776 · focus · HN ↗
    I went to a "town hall" at my company last friday, the slides were all obviously AI-generated, the text was too, without anybody proofreading it.
    How do i know? Because i doubt "Access&Identity will help us push forward the productivity of all collaborators" was what the team responsible for the prompt wanted to say.
  2. superhuzza · 1790717751 · focus · HN ↗
    He is most definitely a real person, I know people who have written papers with him.
  3. aeve890 · 1790732262 · focus · HN ↗
    >That the name in no slop backwards is too wild to be real, but it's a real person.
    Reverse nominative determinism
2. jagged-chisel · 1790713062 · focus · HN ↗
  > The guy's name is "nosloP" spelled backwards. Maybe spelled normally it's supposed to signify the opposite.
  Most insightful comment
  1. mag7269 · 1790713346 · focus · HN ↗
    Yeah, he should publish this exquisite finding in the Journal of Human Shit That AI Would Not Produce
  2. chips_not_fries · 1790718673 · focus · HN ↗
    He be Spool'n
3. EA-3167 · 1790713562 · focus · HN ↗
  <a href="https://www.pangram.com/history/51744f24-1896-4d5c-8bfc-786c86533169?ucc=I4Fo2JL9GdU" rel="nofollow">https://www.pangram.com/history/51744f24-1896-4d5c-8bfc-786c...
  It isn't even partially human written, it's just an LLM's output.
  1. ofjcihen · 1790716888 · focus · HN ↗
    As much as I’m confident this reasercher is just a skinsuit for a slop machine I don’t exactly trust pangram. I’ve apparently been flagged for possible AI slop comments based on Pangram results before.
    Oddly it seems to have happened on longer posts? Don’t know if that may play a part.
    esperent · 1790717055 · focus · HN ↗
    Isn't pangram more accurate with longer texts? Does it claim to be accurate for comment sized text?
    ofjcihen · 1790717983 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    EA-3167 · 1790717642 · focus · HN ↗
    It certainly isn’t perfect, especially when it gives a probability below 100%z .
    jimmygrapes · 1790736588 · focus · HN ↗
    Refuse to elaborate
4. nico · 1790717712 · focus · HN ↗
  > AI submissions, soon AI reviewers, and shortly after only AI readers
  This is already happening. Write code with an AI agent, agent creates PR, other agents review, coding agent iterates, PR gets merged, and hopefully real humans use the application and provide feedback
  The latter step is also now staring to be replaced by AI (user directs agent to access app, get data, perform actions)
  Similar thing with email
  1. rurban · 1790748999 · focus · HN ↗
    I filed a PR with bytedance for an AI vision project. The PR was written by AI, 4x reviewed by the github AI, and fixed by my AI. The PR review was by a Bytedance AI bot, and it looked pretty good. Let's see what my AI will answer today.
  2. UncleMeat · 1790771016 · focus · HN ↗
    At least code has some sort of validation mechanism. The tests can pass or fail. The prod system can crash or not. There are plenty of limits here that make fully automated code deployment dangerous but it is still meaningfully different from text meant to communicate an idea.
5. nxobject · 1790723234 · focus · HN ↗
  And here I thought it was "Poison" with a typo...

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.