Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47711381

Points: 4

# Comments: 6

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47698187

Points: 1

# Comments: 1

Also, it takes a willful ignorance of history for ARM to claim this is the first time they've manufactured hardware. I mean, maaaaybe, teeeeechnically that's true, but ARM was the Acorn RISC Machine, and Acorn was in the hardware business...at least as much as Apple was for the first iPhone.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47467223

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Now, since leaving academia, I have by no means lost interest in science. If anything, I've followed the world of research with as much interest and attention as ever and, because I no longer have to play the perpetual game of one-upmanship that pervades academic departments, I have been free to spread my interest around to more diverse topics. It's been rather freeing.

At the same time, my paycheck depends on delivering code, and so I've delivered code and not academic papers. Then, something interesting happened: I splurged on a Claude subscription and suddenly I have the most attentive research assistant I could have imagined all without the need for an academic department or drawn-out grant proposal process.

The only hurdle remaining is: where should I publish? Unfortunately, as I don't have an academic affiliation, I cannot get automatic access to publish to arXiv (and anyone I know who could endorse me is focused in on the biological sciences subjects from my time in grad school, not cs.LG). I've thought about simply posting to GitHub and linking from my personal site, but I worry if that's enough to establish priority and/or garner real critique and feedback.

I'm contemplating PLOS One, but I don't know the ML community well enough to know if that's an appropriate venue? Any help on how to re-enter the world of scientific publishing (in a new area) would be much appreciated!

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47456005

Points: 2

# Comments: 2

In the typical "experimental report" sort of paper, the focus is typically narrowed to a knifes edge around the hypothesis, the methods, the results, and analysis. Yes, there is the "Introduction" and a "Discussion", but increasingly I saw "Introductions" become a venue to do citation bartering (I'll cite your paper in the intro to my next paper if you cite that paper in the intro to your next paper) and "Discussion" turn into a place to float your next grant proposal before formal scoring.

Review papers, on the other hand, were more open to speculation. I remember reading a number that were framed as "here's what has been reported, here's what that likely means...and here's where I think the field could push forward in meaningful ways". Since the veracity of a review is generally judged on how well it covers and summarizes what's already been reported, and since no one is getting their next grant from a review, there's more space for the author to bring in their own thoughts and opinions.

I agree that LLMs have largely removed the need for review papers as a reference for the current state of a field...but I'll miss the forward-looking speculation.

Science is staring down the barrel of a looming crisis that looks like an echo chamber of epic proportions, and the only way out is to figure out how to motivate reporting negative results and sharing speculative outsider thinking.

The code was complete garbage, but the feeling was real, and the Vibe programming language was born. It's taken a year of nights-and-weekends, but I finally have a self-hosting variant of a Scheme built up on top of LLVM.

Along the way, I have learned so much about what it means to code with an LLM as your partner. I have tried, true to its name, to only vibe-code Vibe...though I have had to get my hands dirty and touch the code on a few occasions. (Cursor's Composer 1.5 has a real problem with balancing parens...which makes me think that implementing runtime structured editing might start moving up on the list of desired features.)

It should go without saying: Vibe is not even on the horizon of "production ready"...but I have a sense that it could get there faster than you might expect.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47426415

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47413724

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47335418

Points: 5

# Comments: 1

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47308842

Points: 4

# Comments: 1

What Americans seem to only just now be waking up to is that lack of work/life balance, lack of family leave accommodations, and loss of community has a very real, very tangible dollar amount cost. I’m very, very tired of the knee-jerk response to every “socialist” proposal being, “yeah, that’s great, but how are you going to pay for it?”

How are you going to pay for not having family leave? How are you going to pay for not having universal healthcare? How are you going to pay for not having tuition-free college for all? These choices have a cost, and Americans are paying that cost every day!

In other words, that filter that keeps Nazis, child predators, doxing, etc. off your favorite platform only exists because of section 230.

Now, one could argue that the biggest platforms (Meta, Youtube, etc.) can, at this point, afford the cost of full editorial responsibility, but repealing section 230 under this logic only serves to put up a barrier to entry to any smaller competitor that might dislodge these platforms from their high, and lucrative, perch. I used to believe that the better fix would be to amend section 230 to shield filtering/removal, but not selective promotion, but TikTok has shown (rather cleverly) that selective filtering/removal can be just as effective as selective promotion of content.