To all the people complaining here that this company will steal your face and voice:
Does that mean you're comfortable when you digitally open a bank account (or even Airbnb account, which became harder lately) where you also have to show face and voice in oder to make sure you're who you claim to be?
What's stopping the company that the bank and Airbnb outsourced this task to, to rip your data off?
You will not even have read their ToC since you want to open an account and that online verification is just an intermediate step!
If Russians punch way above their weight demographically and are so good at math - how come then that the French have even more Fields medals per capita?
Maybe this article was written by a Russian troll farm, as it is essentially claiming Russian math supremacy.
With the advent of ChatGPT, universities are becoming more like networking clubs, since for all domains where you don't need a lab, ChatGPT already is often much better than a random lecturer in a class of 300 students that you will never have 1-on-1 access to (and the tutors are also busy with their own research of course).
Just from the way this paper is written (badly, all kinds of LaTeX errors), my belief that something meaningful was proved here, that some nice mathematical theory has been developed, is low.
Sorry but you're just wrong. There are issues but the paper is written well enough. The content (whether this is really a novel enough idea) is debateable because anyone could have told you that LLMs aren't going to develop the halting algorithm.
Have you actually read the paper/know how a ML paper should be written?
Here are some of the issues:
- section 1.4.3: Can you explain how societal consequences of LLM hallucinations are in any way relevant for a paper that claims in the abstract to use mathematical theories ("computational theory", although that is an error too, they probably mean computability theory)?
At best, such a section should be in the appendix, if not a separate paper.
- section 1.2.2: What is with the strange subsections 1.2.2.1, 1.2.2.2 that they use for enumeration?
- basic LaTeX errors, e.g. page 19, at L=, spacing is all messed up, authors confuse using "<" with "\langle", EFC.
So no, I'm afraid you are wrong. The paper violates many of the unspoken rules of how a paper should be written (which can be learned by reading a lot of ML papers, which I guess the authors haven't done) and based on this alone, as it is, wouldn't make it into a mediocre conference, let alone the ICML, ICLR, NeurIPS.
Seems like it could just fill the role of the exploitative publishers if it takes off. Community does the work (scientists volunteer peer review), site gets the profit and locks everyone in due to network effects of being the hub for discussion. Eventually starts charging for boosting your paper with guaranteed return in citations etc. I'm just assuming it is venture backed due to having a team of advisors and stuff and about page being LinkedIn but sorry if I'm off on that and it is nonprofit or something.
While it says "a Stanford project" at the top, this could mean anything. It could
in particular allude to the fact that Stanford professors are advisor.
The advisors are well-known professors, but some, like Sebastian Thrun, have an entrepreneurial background, so probably a company sits behind this.
For me, the entire project gets a NO CONFIDENCE vote because I can't tell who they are, who pays for moderation (which they claim to do etc.).
I'd feel much more at ease if this was done by arXiv, or at least endorsed by arXiv.
Behind all the technical lingo, what problem does this solve that cannot be solved by sticking to a git repo that tracks your research and using some simple actions on top of GitHub for visualization etc.?
> The fact that software engineers are the only folks with the skills to do what you just said.
I've always been impressed by the amount of effort that people are willing to put in to avoid using version control. I used mercury about 18 years ago, and then moved to git when that took off, and I never write much text for work or leisure without putting it in git. I don't even use branches at all outside of work - it's just so that the previous versions are always available. This applies to my reading notes, travel plans, budgeting, etc.
Version control is fantastic, and you can get quite creative with it too. Git scraping for example (https://simonwillison.net/2021/Dec/7/git-history/). But as nice as Git is, people who are not trained to be a software developer or computer scientist often don't have a lot of exposure to it, and when they do it's a relatively big step to learn to use it. In my mechanical engineering studies we had to do quite a bit of programming, but none of my group mates ever wanted to use version control, not even on bigger projects. The Jacquard notebook and other Ink&Switch projects are aimed at people with non-software backgrounds, which is quite nice to see :)
It just looks like "conf_paper1.tex" "conf_paper3.tex" "conf_paper_friday.tex" "conf_paper_20240907.tex" "conf_paper_last_version.tex" "conf_paper_final.tex"
...
"conf_paper_final2.tex"
Oh, and the figures reference files on local dir structure.
And the actual, eventually published version, only exists in email back and forth with publisher for style files etc.
I once worked with a professor and some graduate students who insisted on using box as a code repository since it kept a log of changes to files under a folder. I tried to convince them to switch to git by making a set of tutorial videos explaining the basics but it was still not enough to convince them to switch.
When github started, for most people the only purpose was just so you didn’t have to manage a server holding your repository. To avoid using it at that point for private projects required all of ssh and a $5/mo virtual machine somewhere, and all of their customers could follow the steps to set that up. It still succeeded.
PE already has a pretty bad press, so they know that customers are calling only because PE is a red flag.
They could just serve some meaningless half-truth and try to confuse you.