ks2048 4 hours ago

I think they should put human names on the papers as someone who has reviewed the result, even if just a preliminary review. (I’m assuming they didn’t just pipe their model output directly to the internet and these had some amount of review?)

▲

xpct 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Presumably they don't because they're training the audience (us) to trust the machine, not its verifiers, even if they were included.

	▲	alexgoodhart 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I appreciate you acknowledging the politics behind this. OpenAI does not intend to be a software company for long, they intend to be scientific infrastructure. They'll want to be faucet from which pours embryos, orbital calculation, geothermal/substructural rating, and etc.

▲

procedurecall 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Looking at the quality of the writing in these documents (or at least, the ones that relate to problems I've worked on), I do not think humans reviewed them.

▲

chiwilliams 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There are competitive reasons that they don't want to share all the people on the team.

▲

make3 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think it's a damned if they do, damned if they don't scenario. I think they would be afraid to seem like they're claiming that the selected scientists deserve the praise of an invention or something, when it's "just the machine who did the work"

	▲	ks2048 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah, that's probably right. But, it's a "new world" - invent a new standard - "Written by Claude Foo X.Y; initial review by John Doe". With a deluge of results, having some human expert vouch that it even might be worthwhile would help. (e.g. see the link on HN yesterday, "Two Room-Temperature Antiferromagnetic Semiconductor Candidates" - I see it not worth looking at unless a subject expert vouches for it).

▲

chrisjj 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I think they should put human names on the papers as someone who has reviewed the result

Assume the empty list you see is complete. :)

▲

agnosticmantis 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Long term this will be the only reasonable author list: Chad G. Peter {1}, Mat H. Lean {2}.

1: Author 2: Verifier