tomhartke

21 ms·

1.
by tomhartke 2y ago
On the discovery progress, we can't look at all 200M papers with the LLM, so we prioritize some of them (the first 100 most promising) for deep analysis. Within those, we find a few that are relevant. But the rate at which we discover
2.
by tomhartke 2y ago
Here's some others focused at least partly on search: Elicit https://elicit.com/ Lumina-chat https://www.lumina-chat.com/ Consensus https://consensus.app/ OpenEvidence (medical focused
3.
by tomhartke 2y ago
Here's the results for Emmitt's request on research using interventions to improve reaction time: https://www.undermind.ai/query_app/display_one_search/e1bcab...
4.
by tomhartke 2y ago
While the time/cost of using GPT-4 is not ideal, GPT-4-level classification is absolutely crucial for the entire adaptation process to succeed. With 3.5 guiding the adaptation, we find that errors quickly accumulate. It can't iden
5.
Show HN: Undermind – Deep scientific paper search with adaptive LLMs(undermind.ai)
49 points by tomhartke 2y ago|14 comments
6.
Show HN: Deep search engine for science(undermind.ai)
3 points by tomhartke 2y ago|1 comments
7.
by tomhartke 3y ago
FYI system is a bit delayed because of traffic levels. May take a bit longer to generate results at the moment (usually takes ~10 min).
8.
by tomhartke 3y ago
Appreciate the advice. Re: timing, it's bottlenecked by the sequential nature of the search. To be comprehensive, we discover a few papers, and use that info to choose where to look more closely next.
9.
by tomhartke 3y ago
The goal is to be systematic and handle complex topics. ChatGPT + keyword search can't handle complex topics at all, and isn't systematic either.
10.
by tomhartke 3y ago
Here's an example report on: tokenization-free large language model architectures, which have been shown to achieve compute/accuracy tradeoffs comparable to or better than traditional token-based models https://app.unde
11.
Show HN: Deep search of all ML papers(app.undermind.ai)
109 points by tomhartke 3y ago|25 comments
12.
by tomhartke 3y ago
Why don't we track scientific authorship trends like financial markets? We should track how experienced scientists switch fields, since this is probably a strong signal for important science. I tracked author movement between fields fr