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).
    raddan · 1790715016 · focus · HN ↗
    > That is not realistic, but I suppose where things are heading ...
    And to expand on this, it's not realistic because science is not armchair philosophy. You have to go out and measure the world.
    Sometimes, through force of will, a person can think deeply about a problem and come up with beautiful theories that explain our measurements. Many scientists had careers like this, probably most famously, Einstein. But it's worth noting that Einstein also got a lot wrong! [1]
    Even if we somehow give an LLM the ability to go out and measure things, I seriously doubt that the role of humans in science is done. There's a big difference between "an explanation" and "a good explanation." Ask any physicist. There's a surprising amount of aesthetics involved. Good theories are consistent with the evidence, but it's more than that-- there's a great deal of "taste" involved. And there's a good reason for that. For any real problem, there are effectively an infinite number of alternative hypotheses. From a "theory of science" standpoint, this should cause scientists nightmares, but it doesn't. Because by the time you are a practicing scientist, you've developed a feel for what constitutes a satisfying explanation. If you spend time with scientists, especially in the "hallway track" at a conference, "taste" is a frequent topic of conversation!
    [1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_unsuccessful_investigations" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_unsuccessful_inve...
    dekhn · 1790715579 · focus · HN ↗
    I think you misunderstood. I'm not asking for an oracle that can determine whether a paper is correct, I want an oracle that can find real mistakes in papers (thus invalidating them).
    I work full time on "lab in the loop" AI, so I'm pretty familiar with the need for real-world experiments. I am not proposing a fully autonomous scientist that could read an arbitrary paper and emit whether it's universally true without some verification method.
    Also, to your statement: " Because by the time you are a practicing scientist, you've developed a feel for what constitutes a satisfying explanation."
    I'm a practicing scientist (well, ex-scientist) and it seems like most "satisfying explanations" end up being wrong or incomplete simply because they seem so satisfying.
    jltsiren · 1790717075 · focus · HN ↗
    How do you determine that a mistake is serious enough that it actually invalidates the paper? How do you know that it's not possible to correct it and reach a similar conclusion with fundamentally the same approach? Especially when the fix would be complex enough to justify a follow-up paper.
    dekhn · 1790728198 · focus · HN ↗
    You can get a good idea by reading Retraction Watch and following a few papers/scientists who show up in it. That defines the current norms.
    To me, a single significant error of any kind brings the entire paper into question. If a less important figure contains an image duplication, that makes me wonder if I can trust any of the images.
    jltsiren · 1790729632 · focus · HN ↗
    That's the administrative aspect of the question. But as a scientist, I'm more interested in knowing if the result is real. Sometimes even fatally flawed papers make valuable contributions, because the proposed approach will lead to the claimed result, once done properly.
    dekhn · 1790731170 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm not aware of any fatally flawed paper that leads to the claimed result when done properly. Could you share an example?
    jltsiren · 1790734013 · focus · HN ↗
    It depends on what you see as a fatal flaw, and if you count mathematics and theoretical fields or just actual science. In mathematics and theoretical computer science, it's pretty common that major results are initially wrong, and fixing the errors can take a long time. Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is the best-known example.
    In any case, my point was that rejecting results due to technical flaws is intellectually lazy. As a scientist, your job is more about trying to find value in other people's work than finding excuses to reject it.
    dekhn · 1790784197 · focus · HN ↗
    I can't speak to math and theoretical CS, because both of those fields now have methods to make proofs that can be verified (and math is probably the only situation where you can "prove" something true; all other fields are effectively probabilistic, not logical in nature).
    I disagree with your premise. Part of our job as scientists (thankfully no longer mine) is to reduce the irrelevant and incorrect noisy as early as possible. I have seen so many grad students get excited by a paper and put enormous effort into reproducing somethign that was a false or fake result.
    jltsiren · 1790793994 · focus · HN ↗
    As scientists, we need to have effective filters to quickly ignore things that are probably not relevant to us. But we also need to acknowledge that those filters are necessarily noisy, and they don't tell much of the value of the work they reject.
    If you want to determine reliably whether something is irrelevant and incorrect noise, determining whether there is anything of value is a necessary first step.
    I've seen many reproduction attempts in bioinformatics fail, because they person trying to reproduce the work didn't have the conceptual background to do it correctly. Instead of spending enough time studying the theory, they rushed directly to action.
    dekhn · 1790859533 · focus · HN ↗
    Haha, Sean Eddy used to complain about reproduction efforts in bioinformatics (specifically, people trying to benchmark HMMER and doing a bad job). Fortunately, my advisor helped me learn the techniques and Sean approved (he was also happy that HMMER beat BLAST for remote homolog detection).
    I also left a postdoc position over my professor's decision to rewrite my paper to juice all the stats- not a specific error, but selectively interpreting the data to make the results look better than state of the art, when they were not.
    I would absolutely love to have my "paper correctness AI" mark all those bad reproductions in the literature and outright misrepresentations- it's all too easy to rush to publish and get a lot of attention- especially if your advisor or coauthors are prestigious and mildly unethical.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.