6 ms·

For giving away a million bucks, you get to gatekeep however you choose. But no, peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal is a fairly normal standard

For giving away a million bucks, you get to gatekeep however you choose. But no, peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal is a fairly normal standard.

pred_ 4d ago
And just to spell it out, since it looks like HackerNews is flooded by people who are new to science these days: even if a result doesn't come with a price, scholarly peer review is the norm across all of science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review
- karmakurtisaani 4d ago
  This is a good reminder for the generation grown up in the era of trust-me-bro benchmarks.
limagnolia 4d ago
Being normal doesn't necessarily mean it isn't gatekeeping- gatekeeping is also quite "normal" in many cases. That being said, I think there needs to be some standard, and peer review seems like the best we have come up with. But is the current status quo for scientific publication the best we can do? I think that is an open question and we should be able to openly discuss alternatives.
- AnimalMuppet 4d ago
  "Is it the best we can do?" is a completely different question from "given that it's the current standard, should it be applied to this new claim that is happening now?"
Razengan 4d ago
The whole "reputable" marker is where it gets into "True Scotsman" territory and the whole "publishing papers" thing gets called out as a racket even on HN now and then with many videos against it by former "academia" people on YouTube. The sooner AI brings down such archaic customs into a gibbering pile of protesting rubble, the better innit?
- AnimalMuppet 4d ago
  Depends. What replaces it? Does that replacement do better at keeping false claims out, or worse? Does it do better at letting true claims through, or worse?
  - Razengan 4d ago
    One thing's for certain: True and false should not depend on convincing people.
    - qlte 4d ago
      Instead of a committee of subject matter experts they should use a more rigorous and trustworthy standard, like passing the solution to ChatGPT with the prompt "did this win?"
    - AnimalMuppet 4d ago
      Real true or false - which I define as correspondence (or lack thereof) with reality - does not depend on convincing people. Reality does not change when people become convinced; ideas correspond to reality whether people are convinced or not. But perceived truth and falsehood depend on convincing people - either convincing them one by one, or else convincing some gatekeeper, whose word will convince those who accept the gatekeeper.
      - Razengan 4d ago
        So if an AI proves something but ""rEpUtAbLe"" papers refuse to publish it just on grounds of it being AI, does that make it not true? You know in the past women (and other marginalized people) weren't allowed to publish scientific papers for the majority of human history? Is this how you want your "truth" to be? If so then man, no sympathy; these institutions deserve to be broken down. Let them spaz on the floor and throw tantrums all they want.
        YeGoblynQueenne 3d ago

For giving away a million bucks, you get to gatekeep however you choose. But no, peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal is a fairly normal standard.

pred_ 4d ago

And just to spell it out, since it looks like HackerNews is flooded by people who are new to science these days: even if a result doesn't come with a price, scholarly peer review is the norm across all of science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review

karmakurtisaani 4d ago
This is a good reminder for the generation grown up in the era of trust-me-bro benchmarks.

limagnolia 4d ago

Being normal doesn't necessarily mean it isn't gatekeeping- gatekeeping is also quite "normal" in many cases. That being said, I think there needs to be some standard, and peer review seems like the best we have come up with. But is the current status quo for scientific publication the best we can do? I think that is an open question and we should be able to openly discuss alternatives.

AnimalMuppet 4d ago
"Is it the best we can do?" is a completely different question from "given that it's the current standard, should it be applied to this new claim that is happening now?"

Razengan 4d ago

The whole "reputable" marker is where it gets into "True Scotsman" territory and the whole "publishing papers" thing gets called out as a racket even on HN now and then with many videos against it by former "academia" people on YouTube. The sooner AI brings down such archaic customs into a gibbering pile of protesting rubble, the better innit?

AnimalMuppet 4d ago
Depends. What replaces it? Does that replacement do better at keeping false claims out, or worse? Does it do better at letting true claims through, or worse?
- Razengan 4d ago
  One thing's for certain: True and false should not depend on convincing people.
  - qlte 4d ago
    Instead of a committee of subject matter experts they should use a more rigorous and trustworthy standard, like passing the solution to ChatGPT with the prompt "did this win?"
  - AnimalMuppet 4d ago
    Real true or false - which I define as correspondence (or lack thereof) with reality - does not depend on convincing people. Reality does not change when people become convinced; ideas correspond to reality whether people are convinced or not. But perceived truth and falsehood depend on convincing people - either convincing them one by one, or else convincing some gatekeeper, whose word will convince those who accept the gatekeeper.
    - Razengan 4d ago
      So if an AI proves something but ""rEpUtAbLe"" papers refuse to publish it just on grounds of it being AI, does that make it not true? You know in the past women (and other marginalized people) weren't allowed to publish scientific papers for the majority of human history? Is this how you want your "truth" to be? If so then man, no sympathy; these institutions deserve to be broken down. Let them spaz on the floor and throw tantrums all they want.
      - YeGoblynQueenne 3d ago