←back to thread

292 points carabiner | 5 comments | | HN request time: 1.015s | source
Show context
intoamplitudes ◴[] No.44007496[source]
First impressions:

1. The data in most of the plots (see the appendix) look fake. Real life data does not look that clean.

2. In May of 2022, 6 months before chatGPT put genAI in the spotlight, how does a second-year PhD student manage to convince a large materials lab firm to conduct an experiment with over 1,000 of its employees? What was the model used? It only says GANs+diffusion. Most of the technical details are just high-level general explanations of what these concepts are, nothing specific.

"Following a short pilot program, the lab began a large-scale rollout of the model in May of 2022." Anyone who has worked at a large company knows -- this just does not happen.

replies(8): >>44007628 #>>44007719 #>>44007830 #>>44008308 #>>44009207 #>>44009339 #>>44009549 #>>44012142 #
mzs ◴[] No.44008308[source]

  % gunzip -c arXiv-2412.17866v1.tar.gz | tar xOf - main.tex | grep '\bI have\b'
  To summarize, I have established three facts. First, AI substantially increases the average rate of materials discovery. Second,  it  disproportionately benefits researchers with high initial productivity. Third, this heterogeneity is driven almost entirely  by differences in judgment. To understand the mechanisms behind these results, I investigate the dynamics of human-AI collaboration in science.
          \item Compared to other methods I have used, the AI tool generates potential materials that are more likely to possess desirable properties.
          \item The AI tool generates potential materials with physical structures that are more distinct than those produced by other methods I have used.
  % gunzip -c arXiv-2412.17866v1.tar.gz | tar xOf  - main.tex | grep '\b I \b' | wc
      25    1858   12791
  %
replies(1): >>44008898 #
rafram ◴[] No.44008898[source]
Not sure what you’re trying to say.
replies(1): >>44009229 #
kccqzy ◴[] No.44009229[source]
Maybe the point is that it is rare for a paper to have the pronoun "I" so many times. Usually the pronoun "we" is used even when there is a single author.
replies(3): >>44009420 #>>44009542 #>>44010106 #
1. IshKebab ◴[] No.44010106[source]
It's rare that "I" is used because usually papers have multiple authors, and also the academic community has a weird collective delusion that you have to use "we"... but there are still a reasonable number of papers that use "I".
replies(1): >>44010585 #
2. xyzzy99 ◴[] No.44010585[source]
There's no "collective delusion" here. There is a long-established tradition that formal scientific writing should avoid use of first-person pronouns in general because it makes findings sound more subjective. It's taught this way from early on. This is slowly starting to change, but it's still pretty much the rule.
replies(3): >>44010970 #>>44011185 #>>44012487 #
3. cycomanic ◴[] No.44010970[source]
For a while passive voice was recommended by lots of courses and some advisors, but I reality most journals never recommended passive voice and now many (most) actively discourage it (e.g. here is the nature style guide https://www.nature.com/nature-portfolio/for-authors/write) , because it makes texts much more difficult to understand. It is quite funny how passive voice became prevalent, it was not common in the beginning of the 20th century but somehow become quite common especially in engineering. It is only quite recently (~10 years) that the move is to back to active voice.
4. BeetleB ◴[] No.44011185[source]
> There is a long-established tradition that formal scientific writing should avoid use of first-person pronouns in general because it makes findings sound more subjective. It's taught this way from early on.

Established tradition doesn't negate "collective delusion".

And anyone who uses the use of "I" in a paper to imply anything about its authenticity is definitely indulging in some form of a delusion. It's not the norm, but is definitely permitted in most technical fields. When I was in academia no reputable journal editor would take seriously reviewer feedback that complains about the use of I.

5. vintermann ◴[] No.44012487[source]
Yeah yeah, but it's not the interesting part here. It's not as if flaunting this convention means we can be confident you're a fraud.