Tiberium an hour ago | parent | next [-]

The core claim of the paper is related to PRL's prices. The paper says:

> at current PRL prices ($0.21)

But this is the price for Perle - https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/perle/ - an entirely different project.

The actual Pearl (PRL) price is $0.76 as of now - https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/pearl-2 - which is more than 3x difference. Based on this, I'm quite skeptical of the usefulness of the rest of the paper.

Plus the authors for at least one cited paper seem to be hallucinated/wrong (I'm leaning into hallucinated because the style looks more similar to Claude). For example, in the paper:

> D. Leinweber, C. Badertscher, and A. Kiayias. Challenges of proof-of-useful-work (PoUW). arXiv:2209.03865, 2022.

The reality if you open that arXiv:

> Challenges of Proof-of-Useful-Work (PoUW). Felix Hoffmann

	▲	therealpygon an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Our vibe-coded paper finds a vibe-coded service couldn’t vibe-code AI to vibe-code a …

▲

codexetreme an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So it's more wasted electricity and power for random internet monies?

	▲	LogicFailsMe an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Apparently, having run out of honest ideas for wasting electricity, they are creating a new free market microeconomy for doing so to maintain the excitement. Perhaps it's time to start making prediction markets in this space as well to take this to the next level? And I say that as someone incredibly pro-AI, but the people who get access to the big GPU clusters are mostly not the right people w/r to computational efficiency.
	▲	ramon156 an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		All the cool kids are doing it

▲

abhinaba_ai 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]