mwt

7 ms·

1.
by mwt 2mo ago
> If progress is as fast as LLMs Is this the new "x technology is a year away" ?
2.
by mwt 5mo ago
Could you provide examples of healthcare executives held personally liable for harm resulting from reckless decision-making? I have never heard of such a thing happening in healthcare so framing CEO responsibility as a solution to the probl
3.
by mwt 5mo ago
Pharmaceuticals are heavily regulated, the "we vibecoded a therapeutic and released it without testing" hypothetical has no basis in reality
4.
by mwt 5mo ago
Would Doom give a sociopath instructions on how to commit a mass shooting if asked? I don't remember that part of the game
5.
by mwt 7mo ago
Only through the first two paragraphs but a little turned off by the "everybody else is wrong, we are right and it's this one specific thing" attitude when it the topic is understanding something as complex and opaque as the
6.
by mwt 10mo ago
The cheminformatics I do (mostly drug discovery/biophysics) definitely requires bonds!
7.
by mwt 11mo ago
I'd be really interested to know of anybody making money with those topics (and doesn't already have their own domain-specific practice for the problem)
8.
by mwt 11mo ago
This code is jibberish to me, but it appears the target is just parsing how many atoms are in a molecule string of some representation. That's cool, but to do just about anything useful in chemistry we need the bond graph (and often mo
9.
by mwt 11mo ago
Much like the classic "our department in [big company] works a lot like a startup"
10.
by mwt 2y ago
I'm a little surprised to see you dismiss type-checkers disagreeing with each other - there are more than a few cases of mypy and pyright disagreeing and brushing them aside as rare enough to be irrelevant is in conflict with my experi
11.
by mwt 2y ago
> as for the split in type checking tools, it is not as bad as you think I'm surprised you already know it's not as bad as I think - have you been able to use it? Working on a team that mixes mypy and pyright is pretty frustrat
12.
by mwt 2y ago
Unfortunately that doesn't answer the question
13.
by mwt 2y ago
thanks, I didn't know it was a thread because of the login wall
14.
by mwt 2y ago
kinda mixed on this - why not just contribute to the community tool? - there's already a major split in Python type-checking tools, if there's a third that doesn't agree with either of them it'll be a mess for projects t
15.
by mwt 4y ago
> Is that related to some legal/privacy issue? Possibly in some medical or social science fields, I don't know. I know there is not such an issue in chemistry and materials science. There also may be some complications for coll
16.
by mwt 4y ago
> I wonder if there is any requirement for researchers to at least publish their data set for statistical analysis and further research. Not generally, though the tide is slowly turning in the right direction. Unfortunately many laws&#x2
17.
by mwt 4y ago
I'm not claiming there are no overly stubborn PIs. But we should not be lazy and paint so a brush that we view the field as a monolith.
18.
by mwt 4y ago
I think there is truth to the general principle you refer to, but I don't think it accurately describes what I saw skimming experts' comments in the linked thread. I'm an outsider to medical research but have experience in ot
19.
by mwt 4y ago
Hopefully so, but there will probably always be a back-and-forth between frauds and journalists in the same way security is always a competition. At least the easy frauds are more likely to be caught today.
20.
by mwt 4y ago
Harboring skepticism of the work people did with a seemingly fraudulent researcher is a good idea. Dismissing everybody in a field whether or not their work is fraudulent is disrespectful approach (not to mention useless).
21.
by mwt 4y ago
I'm not asking for people to turn off skepticism or blindly trust researchers. It's not disrespectful to be skeptical. What is disrespectful is not bothering to read what people have to say before dismissing them as liars who are
22.
by mwt 4y ago
> basically all images in scientific publications are not scrutinized for photoshop This was (mostly) true back then, but it is definitely not true today. People tempted to commit fraud now have to be worried about people like Elisabeth
23.
by mwt 4y ago
It's pretty disrespectful to signal (without evidence or elaboration) that researchers are not credible (or worse, broadly lying) in order to keep their research grants flowing. A hypothesis that turns out to be wrong is something both
24.
by mwt 4y ago
> ... corporate american enabling this will not be seen positively. I don't think this is true in red states or for the minority views that determine what is and is not illegal in this country, or at least it won't play out lik
25.
by mwt 4y ago
> There's no actual storage density information, is there? Nothing in KJ/m^3 units. Even if there was (to be honest, didn't read the journal article) this is something that can easily be hacked. Energy storage research pap
26.
by mwt 4y ago
It's just diffusing the problem from urban centers to mid-sized cities elsewhere in the united states. Say for simplicity that the core result of the problem is that people not making astronomical tech/finance/etc. salaries c
27.
by mwt 4y ago
> everyone wanted to play like a Karpov or a Kasparov. I wonder if there's a modern analog to this with how super GM styles have mostly converged. Trying to play like Magnus is as silly as trying to play like an engine. Even the mos
28.
by mwt 4y ago
But for the vast majority of players there will be a difference in computer lines and human evaluation; even if you're playing a strong game there is still a world of difference between 2500 lichess and ~3300 FIDE stockfish. This is mo
29.
by mwt 4y ago
Thanks for the context - I haven't spent a ton of time looking around but it does seem like there are several moving parts (and evidently some important stuff isn't in the same github org)
30.
by mwt 4y ago
Thanks! I didn't know about this page.

More ›