I was going to write a post disagreeing with this on the basis of the fact that the reader lacks the background information the LLM has. For example, if I were to prompt "explain the proof of quadratic reciprocity using Gauss sums" most readers would need the entire LLM's answer (and much more, probably) and not just the prompt.
But then I realized that the reader can prompt the LLM with the same prompt for the same or equivalent expanded text. Most people don't do this as it's extra effort, but it's interesting to imagine a world where this is the default way of engagement with a text, assumed by both writers and readers alike.
> But then I realized that the reader can prompt the LLM with the same prompt for the same or equivalent expanded text.
That's basically what I've been asking my colleagues (so far a losing battle): Please don't send me AI-generated text. Send me your prompt instead. It is highly likely that I will understand it without needing an LLM, and if not, I can do it myself.
My take is the fall of the current order of scientific institutions was already happening well before Trump's actions this year. Increased academic fraud, the reproducibility crisis, increase in people prioritizing career growth over pursuit of knowledge, overzealous publish-or-perish culture, administrative bloat, and so on.
Can we save it? I want to believe it, but I'm more and more of the mind that we need to create a new scientific institution to replace the old one, whatever that means.
> Not sure what'll fix it though. Perhaps efforts to promote good science as opposed to a great one like accepting publications for failed attempts (michaelson morley style), replication results of earlier works
Too often we try to solve social problems by "adding" something, whether it be adding an incentive or adding a program. I think to really solve the problem of publish or perish mentality, we first need to understand the root cause or causes of this mentality, then work to remove them. What I'm seeing here is humans being shepherded by enormous economic and social pressure to engage in selfish behavior for survival and/or social acceptance. Adding an incentive or a program therefore ultimately does not work because it does nothing about the fact that the humans are still largely enslaved by the aforementioned pressure. So, we must remove the pressure. Remove the pressure, remove the selfish behavior. But how to remove the pressure?
Since this is simple to answer (remove all requirements to publish frequently, and hope that a lot of journals die naturally after that), the real question is: how do we distribute funding to scientists without forcing them to frequently show their work?
I could imagine a world where every scientist (starting from Ph.D student onwards) is evaluated only e.g. on the basis of a biyearly dissertation-style report, which includes all (positive and negative) results, all data/metadata/code/analysis. Rapid communication of interesting results can still happen at conferences and the remaining journals.
But then who reads, reviews and ranks all this work? Who gets positions and funding?
The Carnegie Institution of Washington used to use this model — each year publishing a 'year book.' From 1902 through the 1980s, Institution funded scientists contributed detail reports — including figures and even new results — to the organizations Year Book. Year Books often exceeded 700+ pages.
Today, the Year Book is little more than a glossy fundraising document.
I’ve come to simply realize the problem isn’t AIs, it’s humans.
More specifically, humans who feel the need to make a quick buck.
Actually, the problem isn’t those humans, it’s the societal structure creating incentives and pressures that lead to a large percentage of humans feeling like they need to make a quick buck. Whether that quick buck be for cost of living or for social status gain.
I'm sure there are thousands of resumes out there with a Medium blog URL on them, which probably impresses HR but not so much if you actually read them. It's all just another way to "build your personal brand".
You can solve this by working backwards from the outside in, replacing a (b x) with c a b x wherever you can (not inside out, or else you get into an infinite loop!)
A cute alternative expression to solve the curried composition puzzle is c c c c c, just 5 c's in a row :)
Finally, Lean is a great language to do these puzzles in. See the following code:
/-- Compose! -/
def c (g : β → γ) (f : α → β) := g ∘ f
/-
?f (?g (?h ?x))
-/
#reduce c (c c) c ?f ?g ?h ?x
/-
?f (?g (?h ?x))
-/
#reduce c c c c c ?f ?g ?h ?x
I saw what each #reduce c c ... c did to explore the "palette" I had to work with, and then accidentally stumbled upon the answer that way. I also stumbled on the c (c c) c solution.
May as well include a formalized proof while we're at it:
def c (g : β → γ) (f : α → β) (x : α) : γ := g (f x)
example (h : γ → δ) (g : β → γ) (f : α → β) (x : α) :
h (g (f x)) = (c (c c) c) h g f x :=
rfl
-- Or
example :
(fun (h : γ → δ) (g : β → γ) (f : α → β) (x : α) => h (g (f x)))
= (c (c c) c) :=
rfl
> when the opposite side cannot be convinced by rationality, which is most of the time
Which possibility is the "failure" possibility here, that the opposite side gets convinced, or that the opposite side doesn't get convinced? I'd argue the opposite side getting convinced is the failure. This one singular exchange somehow managed to convince him of your viewpoint amidst his entire lifetime of experiences that led him to conclude the opposite.
I think it's the old rationalist way of thinking to think "If your mind isn't changed by a syllogistically correct argument, you must not be arguing in good faith (or otherwise can't be convinced by rationality)."
Everyone arrives at conclusions about various topics from the data they obtain throughout their lives through a continuous complex inference process they cannot communicate. Included in this process is a judgment of which sources are credible and which are less credible. Your friend is more credible than the guy who is showing you a study that contradicts your belief, for the purpose of changing your mind. (There are lots of studies out there so it is not hard to find one that supports your argument.) Trying to distill this complex inference process into a linear argument will necessarily lead to an inaccurate representation of how they arrived at the belief.
Doesn't mean everyone's right, though. Governments, cults, and friend groups are very good at shaping the data an individual receives. Even in these cases, you can see how based on the limited information that they do receive, it is quite reasonable from that internal perspective to believe what they do believe.
Arguments would be better if by "argument" we mean some effort, no matter how difficult, to communicate how you arrived at the beliefs you have, rather than a "well" crafted linear rational argument.
> Arguments would be better if by "argument" we mean some effort, no matter how difficult, to communicate how you arrived at the beliefs you have, rather than a "well" crafted linear rational argument.
Strong point, have you. How did you arrive at the belief that an argument strengthened by such effort, would be better?
To be clear, I meant that the conversation (the argument) would be a better experience for everyone involved, not the argument itself being somehow strengthened by it.
Nevertheless, I'll try to recall how I arrived at this conclusion.
The biggest influence was seeing for all my life, the left and right in America each claim the other is stupid, irrational, and un-convinceable by rational argument. When I was 16 it really did seem to me that the right was the irrational side here, but seeing everything come full circle with what's happening on the left these days, I realized it's kind of weird and unlikely that half the population, divided on a political line, is actually worse at thinking than the other half.
(See the bottom of this thread for a vivid example.)
Thanks for this. Indeed I can confirm the conversation is conceived to be stronger. That said, still I am not convinced that about half the population would not be worse at thinking, the weird it may be.
But then I realized that the reader can prompt the LLM with the same prompt for the same or equivalent expanded text. Most people don't do this as it's extra effort, but it's interesting to imagine a world where this is the default way of engagement with a text, assumed by both writers and readers alike.