←back to thread

Paper2Agent: Stanford Reimagining Research Papers as Interactive AI Agents

(arxiv.org)
152 points Gaishan | 1 comments | 22 Sep 25 22:02 UTC | HN request time: 0.205s | source
Show context
V__ ◴[22 Sep 25 22:23 UTC] No.45340359[source]▶
> Conventional research papers require readers to invest substantial effort to understand and adapt a paper's code, data, and methods to their own work [...]

But that's the point! If we take out the effort to understand, really understand something on a deeper level from even research, then how can there be anything useful build on top of it? Is everything going to loose any depth and become shallow?

replies(6): >>45340411 #>>45341919 #>>45342900 #>>45343183 #>>45343438 #>>45343442 #
eric-burel ◴[23 Sep 25 06:24 UTC] No.45343442[source]▶
Talk to engineers, they just fear research papers. It's important to have alternate ways of consuming research. Then maybe some engineers will jump the fence and start taking the habit of reading papers.
replies(3): >>45344746 #>>45346169 #>>45366212 #
viraptor ◴[23 Sep 25 12:37 UTC] No.45346169[source]▶
A lot of them are using obscure vocabulary and sciency notation to express very basic ideas. It's like some switch comes on "this is a PAPER it needs fancy words!"

I'd actually like a change from the other end. Instead of "make agents so good they can implement complex papers", how any "write paper so plainly that current agents can implement reproduction"?

replies(1): >>45347612 #
1. randomfrogs ◴[23 Sep 25 14:33 UTC] No.45347612[source]▶
Scientific vocabulary is designed to be precise. The reason papers are written the way they are is to try to convey ideas with as little chance of misinterpretation as possible. It is maddeningly difficult to do that - I can't tell you how many times I've gotten paper and grant reviews where I cannot fathom how Reviewer 2 (and it's ALWAYS Reviewer 2) managed to twist what I wrote into what they thought I wrote. Almost every time you see something that seems needlessly precise and finicky, it's probably in response to a reviewer's comment, and the secret subtext is "There - now it's so over specified even a rabid wildebeest, or YOU, dear reviewer, couldn't misundertand it!" Unfortunately, a side effect of that is that a lot of the writing ends up seeming needlessly dense.