In the mean time, here's a rule of thumb "if your project can be vibecoded in an hour, and amounts to O(10) LoC edits on something existing, or is a convergence proof that o4-mini can do with a bit of guidance, DO NOT write a paper about it":D

I think that the current most bullet proof peer review has been "people will read/try your stuff, and if it works they build on it". But because it's not attached to a formal process on openreview we discard it as being non-scientific.

It seems to me that is totally misaligned with scientific discovery and progress. I don't believe this is a result of bad actors btw. It's just that huge, and complex systems that are O(100) years old take a long time to change, and readjust to new realities. We'll eventually figure it out.

it seems to me that mostly ML academia (i am part of it!) is a proponent of keeping peer review and mega ML conferences going & the bean counter running. We've not found a solution to reviews converging to random coin tosses, at a huge expense of human work hours.

If that's indeed the case (i believe we can measure that), and their key function is social, and a way for people to connect (that's great!), what's the point of having peer review, and using # neurips papers as a bean counter?

my post is a direct criticism to the 100k neurips submissions issue. It's beyond clear that research dissemination--for the most part--does not happen through conferences any more.

Working on the yapping part :)

hmm.. temp has to be 0.6-0.8, this looks like very low temp outputs

I don’t see at all how this is intellectually close to what Shannon wrote. Can you clarify? I read it as computing statistics and how these are compatible with theoretical conjectures. There’s no language generation implicit in the article. Am I misreading it?

can you share the paper?

BTW for historical context, 1948, is very very very early to have these thoughts. So i actually think that every single sentence written is profound. This is kinda random, but here is how Greece looked back then. IT WAS SO EARLY :) x.com/DimitrisPapa...

it's not that profound. it just says, there's no wall, if all stars are aligned. it's an optimistic read of the setting.

researchers

Also a sycophant etymologically means "the one who shows the figs"; the origin of the meaning is kinda debated, either refers to illegally importing figs, or to falsely accusing someone of hiding illegally imported figs

bsky doesn't like GIFs, here they are from the other site x.com/DimitrisPapa...

Super proud of this work that was led by Nayoung Lee and Jack Cai, with mentorship from Avi Schwarzschild and Kangwook Lee

link to our paper: arxiv.org/abs/2502.01612

Oh btw, self improvement can become exponentially faster in some settings, ory when we apply it on pretrained models (again this is all for add/mul/maze etc)