_jsmh

Many if not most of the readers are grad students. Arguably they're the people who pay that indirectly in increased tuition fees.

Reputable quality bar isn't the right metric. Quality is a better metric. To the extent it can be estimated, impact is another. Neither of these require journals specifically.

A different way to look at this is to question what "old slop" actually means.

The reason not to publish in Nature is that it might take a long time to get everything right in the paper to publish, to the point it takes years to get it read. Publishing fewer results faster spreads the results faster.

What prevents AI scrapers from continuing to scrape sites that contain a <Canary> tag but not follow the bad links?

A different way to not require journals to be the arbiters of quality is to let the truth itself be the arbiter of quality instead of designate gatekeepers.

1. Open peer-review to anyone interested instead of only select few. HN is an example of this phenomenon but not for novelty specifically.

2. Permit publication of papers that are shorter for results to spread faster. AI papers are a good example of this phenomenon.

Peer-review can also occur from non-gatekeepers, from non-experts. You realize you posted this on a massively open and public publication system, right?

Non-experts sometimes bring perspectives that gatekeepers are blind to.

I built something like this but it didn't get users. Replying to an author for the valuable info they posted would pay the author and it also accepted public payments.

An AI or search engine that identified the value of a contribution and paid the author directly from advertising money based on query traffic could be a way to solve this.

Working on understanding why this thread gets hundreds of comments and upvotes while threads with the same name posted by other users don't get this much engagement.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46215686

Sorry, I tried. If you want to have good things you have to use them when you first see them.

Can you share more about why it's hard to submit the preprint for review unless its first published somewhere? Wouldn't you be able to submit the preprint directly to whichever conference or journal you want it published in?

For a different way to receive feedback for a preprint consider [url-redacted]. I created it partly out of frustration for the time it takes to publish smaller work. Although not currently implemented, I can provide a version that keeps review comments private.

share any non-mainstream thought and your replies are full of haters

This may be a failure of the platform protocol. I wish the protocol was: [phrase-redacted]. Grok ranking people's posts based on truth will be interesting.

Newspapers charge. How-to guides sell. I paid for education.

Compare work you did earlier with work you did later. Is one better than the other? If so, does it mean there is such a thing as "quality"?

Thank you for sharing this opinion.

AI != LLMs. A future version of better AI might become capable of saying "I don't know."

The mess of figuring out what the facts are, in a way, already has deployed solutions. Journalists are a form of fact checkers. Big news companies with multi-million budgets pay journalists to check things. In effect there already is a market for fact-checking. Managing perceptions by twisting facts is something many have been accused of. When news companies are found to have spread lies they possibly face penalties.

So if the big clunky enterprise version of a form of fact-checking is already in place and kind of working, why would something closer to the lean startup-y tail-end of the distribution of fact-checking not work? If a version of a facts marketplace is already working, why doubt it would ever work?

X paying users for engagement is a new variation of this. Prediction markets like Polymarket is another. Polymarket teaming up with TruthSocial could be an interesting result.

It's okay to have many contested subjects our society cannot agree on and which don't lend themselves to scientific inquiry. It's okay to say I don't know.

This website is full of unthinking drones acting with hive mind behavior

Maybe not "full", statistically, but many times I receive a similar impression.

Just don't pretend that it's for our benefit or that we downvote it because we're unthinking drones

The reason many comments are downvoted on HN in general is most often unknown to me. One interpretation is that it's a major flaw in HN.

This design decision by HN could be intentional, as a trade-off to achieve something else. For example, it could be done to have high velocity of discussion. High velocity could preserve an invariant of keeping or pulling users on the site.

If it's a trade-off, which would suggest something is given up for it, it might be worth exploring what's given up.

A microcosm indeed.

I didn't write my comment to applaud them.

I'm a bit amazed you consistently get downvoted while you seem to speak the truth. So much gray in your comments.

"False or misleading answers from AI chatbots masquerading as facts still plague the industry and despite improvements there is no clear solution to the accuracy problem in sight."

One potential solution to the accuracy problem is to turn facts into a marketplace. Make AIs deposit collateral for the facts they emit and have them lose the collateral and pay it to the user when it's found that statements they presented were false.

AI would be standing behind its words by having something to lose, like humans. A facts marketplace would make facts easy to challenge and hard to get right.

Working POC implementation of facts marketplace in my submissions.

What's new/different in the CIG protocol that makes it better than the current state of the art?

Hacker news protocol

"review articles and position papers must now be accepted at a journal or a conference and complete successful peer review."

How will journals or conferences handle AI slop?

What would a system that rewards people for quality rather than volume look like?

How would an online world that is optimized for humans, not algorithms, look like?

Should content creators get paid?

I also wish it could build the app and let me use it, so I can see if it works, before it asks me to pay. Being asked to pay for something that I can't see if it works made me close my account and not want to use it again. Having to wait for 32 days for credits to reset is a non-starter.

In the end this app builder didn't give me what I want.

It also looks like it uses bolt.new instead of be something built by the OP.

If this works better than base44.com which I haven't seen build backends and keeps breaking and keeps not understanding me, and better than rork.com that supposedly has a better backend but still feels a bit incapable in doing what it's told, then sleek.design could be a game changer.

I would love for more people to use this and to get used to supplying evidence in online forums.

The complexity wasn't in understanding the algorithm, but in overcoming the fear of mathematical notation.

Yes. Many times I found the actual problem is something slightly different and often simpler than what people think. It's a kind of superpower to think this way.

An MVP of a new product can be launched in 1-2 weeks by a single developer. If it has a mobile app, I've seen it get 10,000+ users in 2 weeks.

The most brutal part of distribution I've seen is finding people who care about trying things out.

Maybe something like https://smallbets.com is better than Product Hunt in finding that group of people. PH doesn't allow signups with only a username/email and password.

I'm starting to believe a different community is needed for building in public that isn't HN or PH though it might be smallbets, I didn't try it.

It worked for me to be highly uncompromising on what I want to have while at the same time highly accommodating to what people want. Also to indulge in things I like that others don't.

Another thing that worked in the past is to have a mobile app because it gets you users simply because the app store puts it in front of people.

What didn't work is emailing people asking for feedback. People mostly don't care.

I want a showhn.com where builders commit to try each other's stuff.

I want to signup with username and password, and not with email, and not with Google or GitHub.

I want to see how it would look without signing up at all.

CZ pleaded guilty to violating US law by failing to run an appropriate anti-money laundering program.

The administration says CZ wasn't guilty and was persecuted by the previous administration. https://x.com/WatcherGuru/status/1981457002921677059

What really happened here?