Looks great, but the pricing model is a challenge for a small team. If there was a generous trial period (for testing) with a lower small team price I might be able to consider it, but it’s hard to justify constantly increasing AI and compute costs (already paying for several model subscriptions, existing orchestration tools… in addition to typical infrastructure)
A global labour crisis and broken reputation signaling in FOSS has produced a deluge of software production that has basically nothing to do with low quality submissions and everything to do with capitalism.
FOSS has become the release valve for too much labour supply.
Syntactical (grammatical) text is signal but maybe not the kind of meaningful signal we all wish it was. Meaning, of course, resides in the reader, in the practice of reading (Wittgenstein etc), not the author. We used to use writing quality as a proxy for quality of meaning (thought), but that no longer works well.
The rise of AI writing has only been matched by superficial articles comprised of ideas salad that evince no deep theoretical or historical understanding. Crappy writing has and always will exist, AI doesn’t change that, it just makes awful writing grammatical.
Very helpful analysis that confirms everything I’ve encountered. OCR remains a thorny issue. The author talks about professional workflows struggling with tables and such, but I’ve found it challenging to get clean copies of long documents (books). The hybrid workflow (layout then OCR) sounds promising.
I have a similar idea for a little Potemkin village that AI agents can hang out in, do work, relax, etc. I think we will see more of this. Integrating machine to machine payment is a requirement.
Imagine you are poor and a rich person offers you a choice to steal some bread or some beer. It’s not a real choice because you are poor and therefore steal. The rich person offering the choice is wrong.
It’s an unethical, false choice. The reviewers are not perfectly rational agents that do free work, they have real needs and desires. Shame on ICML for exploiting their desperation.
How is nobody considering the broader political economy of scholarly publications and reviews? These are UNPAID reviews! Sure, maybe ICML isn’t Elsevier, but they are cousins to the socially parasitic and exploitative companies, at the very least.
Hiding behind a false “choice” to not use AI or basically not use AI isn’t an appropriate proposal. This is crooked and shameful. We should boycott ICML except we can’t because they are already the gatekeepers!
Summary: good scientific theories have “reach,” which is not defined in any precise way. Reach has complexity and this can be handled with large parameter neural networks. Assumptions: mechanistic and deterministic worldview; epistemological perfection is the goal (perfect knowledge of facts).
[ my public key: https://keybase.io/quinndupont; my proof: https://keybase.io/quinndupont/sigs/1KgERye-FogNCHQls2Bapg2znpUmIi1zbg3HlH4LIGo ]