rjakob

10 ms·

1.
Time-Series Language Models for Reasoning over Multivariate Data at Scale (ICML)(aioniclabs.ai)
19 points by rjakob 2mo ago|12 comments
2.
by rjakob 1y ago
It’s less about proof and more about demonstrating a new capability that TSLMs enable. To be fair, the paper did test standard LLMs, which consistently underperformed. @iLoveOncall, can you point to examples where out of the box models ach
3.
by rjakob 1y ago
Thanks for the note. Ironically, the post is about models built to understand time.
4.
OpenTSLM: Language models that understand time series(opentslm.com)
280 points by rjakob 1y ago|80 comments
5.
by rjakob 1y ago
If you know the trick to getting reviewed in a day, do tell. Asking for an entire field.
6.
by rjakob 1y ago
inspired by friends at Browser-Use
7.
by rjakob 1y ago
whenever you would like to have comprehensive feedback on your manuscript (more likely during pre-submission or after publishing a preprint).
8.
by rjakob 1y ago
noted.
9.
by rjakob 1y ago
We also provide feedback on rigor across 7 different categories: https://github.com/robertjakob/rigorous/tree/main/Agent1_Pee...
10.
by rjakob 1y ago
System prompts / review criteria cannot be "leaked" because they are open-source (full transparency). Focusing heavily on monetization at this stage seems shortsighted...this tool is a small (but longterm important) step of a
11.
by rjakob 1y ago
As mentioned above, there is an open-source version for those who want full control. The free cloud version is mainly for convenience and faster iteration. We don’t store manuscript files longer than necessary to generate feedback ( https:&
12.
by rjakob 1y ago
Then let's try to be the least biased and fully transparent (which should also help with bias)
13.
by rjakob 1y ago
Here is a description of how it works: https://github.com/robertjakob/rigorous/tree/main/Agent1_Pee...
14.
by rjakob 1y ago
Best feedback so far! You're right: In the current version each "agent" essentially loads the whole paper, applies a specialized prompt, and calls the OpenAI API. The specialization lies in how each prompt targets a specific
15.
by rjakob 1y ago
We are already looking into that: https://github.com/robertjakob/rigorous/tree/main/Agent2_Out... Would be great to see contributions from the community!
16.
by rjakob 1y ago
...or run it themselves. The code is open source: https://github.com/robertjakob/rigorous Note: The current version uses the OpenAI API, but it should be adaptable to run on local models instead.
17.
by rjakob 1y ago
https://www.rigorous.company/privacy
18.
by rjakob 1y ago
Cool! We'll get back asap. We'd be happy to hear what kind of feedback you find useful, what is useless, and what you would want in an ideal review report. ( https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1EhQvw-HdGRqfL0
19.
by rjakob 1y ago
Wouldn't that just require a robust, predefined ruleset we could all agree on? Let's make the dream come true!
20.
by rjakob 1y ago
We honestly didn’t think much about the term “AI peer reviewer” and didn’t mean to imply it’s equivalent to human peer review. We’ll stick to using “AI reviewer” going forward.
21.
by rjakob 1y ago
I wish my own manuscripts would be that important... Regarding security concerns: there is an open-source version for those who want full control. The free cloud version is mainly for convenience and faster iteration. We don’t store manuscr
22.
by rjakob 1y ago
Thanks for the thoughtful feedback. That’s very helpful. We didn’t think too deeply about the term “AI peer reviewer” and didn’t mean to imply it’s equivalent to human peer review. Based on your comments, we’ll stick to using “AI reviewer”
23.
by rjakob 1y ago
Fair. Though in this case, it was obvious even without a detector.
24.
by rjakob 1y ago
Thanks for the heads-up. We'll raise the file size limit shortly.
25.
by rjakob 1y ago
Based on my experience, many reviewers are already using AI extensively. I recently ran reviewer feedback from a top CS conference through an AI detector, and two out of three responses were clearly flagged as AI-generated. In my view, the
26.
by rjakob 1y ago
NOTE: We've received a bunch of submissions from you all (which is awesome — thank you!). We're working through them and will send out reports asap! Since we're currently covering the model costs for you, we'd appreciate
27.
by rjakob 1y ago
Once you receive the report, we'd really appreciate your feedback on what we can improve via https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1EhQvw-HdGRqfL01jZaayoaiTWLS...
28.
by rjakob 1y ago
Haha fair point, domain name was a 5-second, “what’s available for $6” kind of decision. Definitely not trying to go full corporate just yet
29.
by rjakob 1y ago
Good point. Current focus is on improving AI feedback quality, not business model. But we’ll definitely consider local model support for privacy-conscious users. Thanks for the input!
30.
by rjakob 1y ago
wild times

More ›