(economics.mit.edu)

1. pvg ◴[16 May 25 15:23 UTC] No.44006589[source]▶

The paper had an HN thread a few months ago

2. tsurba ◴[16 May 25 16:55 UTC] No.44007584[source]▶

Nice that someone realized then already it sounds sus https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42128532

replies(1): >>44009159 #

3. dang ◴[16 May 25 18:12 UTC] No.44008311[source]▶

Thanks! Macroexpanded:

Artificial Intelligence, Scientific Discovery, and Product Innovation [pdf] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42115310 - Nov 2024 (47 comments)

4. mmooss ◴[16 May 25 19:47 UTC] No.44009159[source]▶

That's not a signal: There always are comments saying the research is suspect.

replies(1): >>44011392 #

5. jwilber ◴[17 May 25 01:38 UTC] No.44011392{3}[source]▶

Taking a contrarian stance on everything (exactly what you’re doing here) is not a signal.

Explaining why research seems sus (what the comment does) is some form (strength proportional to the explanation) of signal.

replies(1): >>44011538 #

6. mmooss ◴[17 May 25 02:15 UTC] No.44011538{4}[source]▶

> Taking a contrarian stance on everything

I pointed out one issue with the GGP. That's not contrarian and not about everything.

MIT asks arXiv to withdraw preprint of paper on AI and scientific discovery