Thread

Nicholas Polson has authored 258 academic papers in 2026 so far

152 points · 110 comments · zaik

tobias2014 · 1790711871 · focus · HN ↗
Why would someone ruin their academic credentials and reputation (at a reputable university) like this? Maybe there was nothing to begin with? Otherwise I can't understand this.
1. lstodd · 1790712037 · focus · HN ↗
  Maybe to expose the utter uselessness of "papers".
  1. sho_hn · 1790712243 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm not an academic, and I understand by osmosis that organized science has many problems related to publishing and connected mechanisms, but I have to say there's been quite a few moments in my life and career when I found the inspiration or solution I needed in a good paper.
    For condensed knowledge on highly specific topics (i.e. more specific than is economical in book form) I often know nothing better.
    Most recently I did sort of a self-taught crash course in ground-penetrating radar and applications for an archeological endeavour I write software for, and a number of papers have been really invaluable.
    dekhn · 1790712431 · focus · HN ↗
    I think one of the end-game components for AI is to be able to read all the literature and generate a reliable list of which ones are not correct and a convincing reason why.
    jruohonen · 1790713151 · focus · HN ↗
    > generate a reliable list of which ones are not correct and a convincing reason why
    That is not realistic, but I suppose where things are heading is that you have some indicator of the strength of evidence -- see Fig. 13 in the following insightful take:
    <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49407226">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49407226
    Though, "strength" should probably be "reliability" and "validity", and I suppose those indicators are more for picking signals from the noise; i.e., what is even worth clicking and reading. That would be increasingly valuable already today due to the volume (and, yes, slop and other related stuff).
    dekhn · 1790715450 · focus · HN ↗
    This is realistic. We already do this today: it's called "journal club". A bunch of grad students read the same paper and then criticize it. I've read papers that I thought were amazing only to. have somebody else notice a key issue in a method, or a conclusion that didn't follow, or outright omission of an important detail, in a way that could be verified by both the students and the authors of the paper.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.