Thomas Dietterich
@tdietterich.bsky.social
Safe and robust AI/ML, computational sustainability. Former President AAAI and IMLS. Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Oregon State University. https://web.engr.oregonstate.edu/~tgd/
Russia and China combined have created twice as much debris as the US. China notoriously blew up a satellite as a test. It would be supreme justice if it was Chinese-sourced debris that struck the Chinese spacecraft.
www.armscontrol.org/act/2007-03/...
www.armscontrol.org/act/2007-03/...
Chinese Satellite Destruction Stirs Debate | Arms Control Association
www.armscontrol.org
November 8, 2025 at 2:43 AM
Russia and China combined have created twice as much debris as the US. China notoriously blew up a satellite as a test. It would be supreme justice if it was Chinese-sourced debris that struck the Chinese spacecraft.
www.armscontrol.org/act/2007-03/...
www.armscontrol.org/act/2007-03/...
“Archival” and “workshop” don’t usually go together. If you can provide evidence of strong peer review, that’s the key. You may need to do that in an appeal, as we don’t have any mechanism in our submission system for providing such evidence
November 5, 2025 at 9:40 PM
“Archival” and “workshop” don’t usually go together. If you can provide evidence of strong peer review, that’s the key. You may need to do that in an appeal, as we don’t have any mechanism in our submission system for providing such evidence
You still should fix the first paragraph. We will be releasing review articles and position papers, but only after they have passed peer review.
November 4, 2025 at 7:01 PM
You still should fix the first paragraph. We will be releasing review articles and position papers, but only after they have passed peer review.
This is a very good point. It is one of the reasons why I think generic chatbots should probably be outlawed.
November 4, 2025 at 12:19 AM
This is a very good point. It is one of the reasons why I think generic chatbots should probably be outlawed.
Here is a good use: LLMs as proof assistants in mathematical research.
Here is a bad use: Automated synthesis of misinformation for social media.
It *is* a new technology, people are trying to figure out how to use it both for good and for ill. Not all technology has a "use" when it is invented.
Here is a bad use: Automated synthesis of misinformation for social media.
It *is* a new technology, people are trying to figure out how to use it both for good and for ill. Not all technology has a "use" when it is invented.
November 3, 2025 at 3:31 AM
Here is a good use: LLMs as proof assistants in mathematical research.
Here is a bad use: Automated synthesis of misinformation for social media.
It *is* a new technology, people are trying to figure out how to use it both for good and for ill. Not all technology has a "use" when it is invented.
Here is a bad use: Automated synthesis of misinformation for social media.
It *is* a new technology, people are trying to figure out how to use it both for good and for ill. Not all technology has a "use" when it is invented.
This only concerns a small fraction of the papers submitted or released by Arxiv.
November 2, 2025 at 5:54 AM
This only concerns a small fraction of the papers submitted or released by Arxiv.
This is only for position papers and literature surveys. We see a lot of slop literature surveys.
November 2, 2025 at 5:30 AM
This is only for position papers and literature surveys. We see a lot of slop literature surveys.
The difficulty with position papers is that they tend to be heavy on opinion and light on evidence. If authors have strong evidence, I suggest writing a policy analysis paper (for cs.CY) rather than a position paper
November 1, 2025 at 5:12 PM
The difficulty with position papers is that they tend to be heavy on opinion and light on evidence. If authors have strong evidence, I suggest writing a policy analysis paper (for cs.CY) rather than a position paper
Contributions to cs.CY are always welcome and will continue to be processed as before. We do plan to split off the computers-in-education part of cs.CY into a new education category.
November 1, 2025 at 5:12 PM
Contributions to cs.CY are always welcome and will continue to be processed as before. We do plan to split off the computers-in-education part of cs.CY into a new education category.
When in doubt, we ask to see the reviews
November 1, 2025 at 3:18 AM
When in doubt, we ask to see the reviews
Reposted by Thomas Dietterich
Yes. This raises the following question: What should be the consequences for an author who submits a paper for peer review that contains hallucinated references? (Or more generally any text that is found to contain obvious falsehoods?)
October 31, 2025 at 3:39 AM
Yes. This raises the following question: What should be the consequences for an author who submits a paper for peer review that contains hallucinated references? (Or more generally any text that is found to contain obvious falsehoods?)
Yes. This raises the following question: What should be the consequences for an author who submits a paper for peer review that contains hallucinated references? (Or more generally any text that is found to contain obvious falsehoods?)
October 31, 2025 at 3:39 AM
Yes. This raises the following question: What should be the consequences for an author who submits a paper for peer review that contains hallucinated references? (Or more generally any text that is found to contain obvious falsehoods?)
This is embarrassingly naive and reflects poorly on the authors.
October 31, 2025 at 3:29 AM
This is embarrassingly naive and reflects poorly on the authors.
Every time you use a simulation in research, you need to validate it. There are probably some valid uses of LLMs as simulated research subjects (e.g., for spotting bad questions in a survey), but you will need real participants to validate each use.
October 30, 2025 at 8:10 PM
Every time you use a simulation in research, you need to validate it. There are probably some valid uses of LLMs as simulated research subjects (e.g., for spotting bad questions in a survey), but you will need real participants to validate each use.
Obviously; otherwise they wouldn't have worked. But tremendous innovation was required to find these advances
October 29, 2025 at 4:08 PM
Obviously; otherwise they wouldn't have worked. But tremendous innovation was required to find these advances
These posts are all truncated; you need to go read this on mastodon
October 28, 2025 at 7:07 PM
These posts are all truncated; you need to go read this on mastodon
Reposted by Thomas Dietterich
6. If scientists start noticing the similarities between observations in different fields, that should be treated as an opportunity to ask new research questions, perhaps even to conduct a comparative analysis or attempt advancing a unifying theory; not an opportunity for a cheap dunk.
October 27, 2025 at 5:42 PM
6. If scientists start noticing the similarities between observations in different fields, that should be treated as an opportunity to ask new research questions, perhaps even to conduct a comparative analysis or attempt advancing a unifying theory; not an opportunity for a cheap dunk.
We’ve had automated theorem provers for many decades. No need for consciousness
October 26, 2025 at 3:12 PM
We’ve had automated theorem provers for many decades. No need for consciousness
Do you know what the causes are? What sensor technology is used? Ultrasonic? RGB cameras? Are these systems trained using machine learning, in which case the problem could be insufficient training data? Perhaps this is related to tuning for zero false detections?
October 25, 2025 at 8:02 PM
Do you know what the causes are? What sensor technology is used? Ultrasonic? RGB cameras? Are these systems trained using machine learning, in which case the problem could be insufficient training data? Perhaps this is related to tuning for zero false detections?
Why are European projects cheaper? Is it lower wages? Lower quality? Lower regulatory overhead?
October 25, 2025 at 7:34 PM
Why are European projects cheaper? Is it lower wages? Lower quality? Lower regulatory overhead?