(economics.mit.edu)

275 points carabiner | 4 comments | 16 May 25 15:09 UTC | HN request time: 0.905s | source

Show context

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

The paper had an HN thread a few months ago

1. 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 #

2. 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 #

3. jwilber ◴[17 May 25 01:38 UTC] No.44011392[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 #

4. mmooss ◴[17 May 25 02:15 UTC] No.44011538{3}[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