Thread

1. program_whiz · 1790944541 · focus · HN ↗

   Is this actually good? Seems like they created a new tool that allows LLM to do a lot of numerical analysis. The papers seem somewhat legit? <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;bootloops.ai&#x2F;papers.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;bootloops.ai&#x2F;papers.html

   I suppose if this framework allows physics and other sciences to rapidly progress (e.g. publish more findings), that is good? It destroys a certain model we had, that science should be arduous and require a genius many years of work to uncover something, but if these papers truly add knowledge via this new tool, then this is for the good.

   Not sure implications for researchers, but from the public perspective, now we have 36 new papers that increase our knowledge. But maybe an expert can weigh in, the papers might be slop?

   1. softwaredoug · 1790944778 · focus · HN ↗

      I think we can only say we are forwarding human knowledge if a human understands the content they’re putting out in the world. I don’t know if that applies in this case, it I think it’s an important bar to clear.

      1. program_whiz · 1790945755 · focus · HN ↗

         Yes but people doing research will be asking LLMs to review many papers prior to their reading most likely. If more humans come to understand the findings of these papers, then its good right?

         I guess on a theoretical level, if you had a button which would create breakthroughs in a field, but you yourself couldn&#x27;t understand it, would you push it? I would because otherwise the field may not discover it, and others will be able to understand the breakthrough.

      2. cma · 1790945991 · focus · HN ↗

         As long as engineers that are AI understand it when they put it to use that shouldn&#x27;t matter for the practical aspects. Most people already don&#x27;t understand physics or engineering. It&#x27;s just keeping the models aligned that&#x27;s the big issue.
   2. gradstudent · 1790945132 · focus · HN ↗

      who is going to parse and distill these AI generated papers? who is going review them even? Science without humans isn&#x27;t science

      1. program_whiz · 1790945619 · focus · HN ↗

         I see the point, but also if these papers provide proof that human can eventually use, or another AI system can use to make further progress, then is it for the best? A great deal of academic papers are drivel couched in dense language and prose to obfuscate the lack of substance. So far, humans rely on search engines and heuristics to avoid wasting time and energy on them. Now, humans are already using LLMs to assist in reading and understanding papers, so perhaps it still contributes to knowledge.
      2. sourdecor · 1790946555 · focus · HN ↗

         Scientific progress only requires the scientific method, not humans being in-the-loop.
   3. coliveira · 1790945998 · focus · HN ↗

      I believe the bar for publication should be &quot;can this be understood by (expert) humans&quot;. If that&#x27;s not the case, it may even be true, but who cares? It&#x27;s not improving knowledge, which is by definition human understanding.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.