@jon_barron Just citing an LLM isn't helpful... Who cares? Like citing Google search. Authors could add a section to the appendix stating the models and workflows they used. Same as it'd be helpful to also list failed experiments and other dead ends. These actually help other researchers
@VicVijayakumar Newer models are better at completely re-writing old model slop, instead of fixing old slop. Maybe even by design... Does it burn more tokens?
@predict_addict Updated: Would you agree that forecasting* academia is responsible for many of the explanations and understanding? Do you think it adds value?
@predict_addict I don't disagree, but what about the fact that sometimes engineering and problem solving comes first, and only later do we really understand how/why it worked? Would you agree that academia is responsible for many of the explanations and understanding? Do you think it adds value?
@karpathy Also very true for code published with a paper. Zero docstrings/comments are a barrier to using (let alone understanding) the code. IMO a video explaining the repo would 10x interest, help the community understand/appreciate the research & offer the author communication practice.
@fhuszar@perplexity_ai@rabbit_hmi Would be great if it actually worked. The welcome email says "click here to redeem your $200 voucher" but it isn't a hyperlink.
@kylebrussell@fchollet Also there are not many companies who will allow their SWEs to use the "tool", due to privacy concerns - so they won't pay for it. Agree it is just to maximise adoption, playing a longer game.