←back to thread

278 points carabiner | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.323s | source
Show context
ipsum2 ◴[] No.44008356[source]
MIT's article is quite scant on details. WSJ has more information, but still no specifics: https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/mit-says-it-no-longer-stands-beh...

> The paper was championed by MIT economists Daron Acemoglu, who won the 2024 economics Nobel, and David Autor. The two said they were approached in January by a computer scientist with experience in materials science who questioned how the technology worked, and how a lab that he wasn’t aware of had experienced gains in innovation. Unable to resolve those concerns, they brought it to the attention of MIT, which began conducting a review.

replies(3): >>44008405 #>>44008764 #>>44009276 #
timewizard[dead post] ◴[] No.44008764[source]
[flagged]
in9 ◴[] No.44008774[source]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_Memorial_Prize_l...
replies(1): >>44008790 #
throwup238 ◴[] No.44008790[source]
Nobel _Memorial_ Prize in Economic Sciences

That’s not a Nobel Prize.

replies(1): >>44008842 #
bee_rider ◴[] No.44008842[source]
If that’s the distinction, it would have been helpful for the original comment to note that they were just sharing some silly trivia instead of making a point.
replies(2): >>44008934 #>>44009144 #
dooglius ◴[] No.44008934[source]
It's not a silly piece of trivia, it's a completely different thing than what people think of as the "Nobel Prize", which is the set of prizes established by Nobel's will, not an unrelated prize named after him to leech off the prestige associated with his name.
replies(3): >>44009061 #>>44009116 #>>44009183 #
1. bee_rider ◴[] No.44009183[source]
The way they presented the information, it is a silly bit of trivia. If there wanted to make some sort of argument about prestige or whatever, they could have made it. Dropping hints of some niche rabbit hole issue is not making a good-faith argument.