radioactivist

13 ms·

1.
by radioactivist 2mo ago
I am somewhat skeptical of this. First, the headline result of 0.7*sigma improvement is the output of a statistical based on lessons/reviews they engaged with and their mid-term score, with that shift being for "full engagement&qu
2.
by radioactivist 7mo ago
While I echo some of your points, [1] is bad example (as a Canadian). Research money in Canada is harder to come by; a basic research grant is roughly ~5x-10x lower than a comparable American grant (students are cheaper here, so its not com
3.
by radioactivist 7mo ago
Also a physicist here -- I had the same reaction. Going from (35-38) to (39) doesn't look like much of a leap for a human. They say (35-38) was obtained from the full result by the LLM, but if the authors derived the full expression in
4.
by radioactivist 8mo ago
Thanks! (very quickly too)
5.
by radioactivist 8mo ago
Is anyone else having trouble using even some of the basic features? For example, I can open a comment, but it doesn't seem like there is any way to close them (I try clicking the checkmark and nothing happens). You also can't see
6.
by radioactivist 8mo ago
In my circles the killer features of Overleaf are the collaborative ones (easy sharing, multi-user editing with track changes/comments). Academic writing in my community basically went from emailed draft-new-FINAL-v4.tex files (or a sh
7.
by radioactivist 8mo ago
Seems like the someone dug something up from the literature on this problem (see top comment on the erdosproblems.com thread) "On following the references, it seems that the result in fact follows (after applying Rogers' theorem)
8.
by radioactivist 1y ago
This is a comparison between a new and interactive medium (+ slides, mind-maps, etc) and a static PDF book as a control. How do we know that a non-AI based interactive book wouldn't give similar (modest) increases in performance withou
9.
by radioactivist 1y ago
Thank you for this comment, it is exactly my impression of all of this as well.
10.
by radioactivist 1y ago
It happens again in the next video. It says: > The team came up with a use case the teaching team hadn’t thought of – using AI to critique the team’s own hypotheses. The AI not only gave them criticism but supported it with links from pu
11.
by radioactivist 1y ago
At one point this states: > Claude was also able to create a list of leaders with the Department of Energy Title17 credit programs, Exim DFC, and other federal credit programs that the team should interview. In addition, it created a lis
12.
by radioactivist 1y ago
I'm not the person you're replying to, but in my subfield (scientist is such a broad term) I would say in my opinion at least half of those key problems that are listed in the article are basically non issues. Things really are qu
13.
by radioactivist 1y ago
And in many subfields there is a preprint freely available on the arxiv during those three months.
14.
by radioactivist 1y ago
OpenAI o4-mini-high I’m actually not finding any officially named “Marathon Crater” in the planetary‐ or terrestrial‐impact crater databases. Did you perhaps mean the features in Marathon Valley on Mars (which cuts into t
15.
by radioactivist 1y ago
Small correction: The meow meow beans episode of Community aired in 2014 and the Nosedive episode of Black Mirror aired 2016. So the Community episode came first.
16.
by radioactivist 1y ago
Most of their categories have straightforward interpretations in terms of students using the tool to cheat. They don't seem to want to/care to analyze that further and determine which are really cheating and which are more product
17.
by radioactivist 1y ago
I think this comment is significantly more dismissive of science and scientists than the original comment was of AI.
18.
by radioactivist 2y ago
Some hard problems have remain unsolved in basically every field of human interest for decades/centuries/millennia -- despite the number of intelligent people and/or resources that have been thrown at them. I really don'
19.
by radioactivist 2y ago
The data set quality seems a really spotty based on looking a few random problems (I looked at about a dozen in the "Physics" subcategory). Several problems had no clear question (or answer) and seemed to be clipped from some long
20.
by radioactivist 2y ago
There are caveats there too. Generally topological qubits can be immune to all kinds of noise (i.e. built-in error correction) but Majorana zero modes aren't exact the right kind of topological for that to be true. They only enjoy pr
21.
by radioactivist 2y ago
It's a topological superconductor.
22.
by radioactivist 2y ago
If you read the referee reports of the Nature paper (they are published alongside it) you'll see some referees echoing similar points.
23.
by radioactivist 2y ago
I understand the claim and what they are trying to do (and they've been trying to do it for 20 years now). It's an interesting approach and it is orthogonal enough from other efforts that it is absolutely worthwhile to pursue scie
24.
by radioactivist 2y ago
The ideas that underpin their device have been around for some time and aren't called by that name in the literature -- it appears to be entirely a branding exercise. A clear signal to me they don't seriously think it is a good na
25.
by radioactivist 2y ago
A few things to keep in mind, given how hard of a media push this is being given (which should immediately set off alarm bells in your head that this might be bullshit) - Topological phases of matter (similar, but not identical to the one d
26.
by radioactivist 2y ago
For reference topological phases of matter have been observed in other contexts since the mid-1980s. So "entirely new" here is misleading.
27.
by radioactivist 2y ago
Whoever decided to make up the non-existent term "topoconductor" for the purposes of this article deserves to feel shame and embarassment (I say this as a condensed matter physicist).
28.
by radioactivist 2y ago
It's worse than that -- this announcement is about one qubit, so even a few thousand not necessarily close at hand for this platform (let alone millions).
29.
by radioactivist 2y ago
I'm a bit skeptical of this study given how it is unpublished, from a (fairly junior) single author and all of the underlying details of the subject are redacted. Is there any information anywhere about what this company in the study w
30.
by radioactivist 2y ago
If this ever works/worked I would agree, but the linked paper is not at all convincing.

More ›