AI reviews are especially annoying because they are great at raising issues that appear to be legitimate to overworked associate editors, but which are in fact nonsense.
using AI today feels like those $3 uber rides in 2015
a lot of young folks are contacting me wanting to work on "human-AI alignment" and i think they just mean HCI, and the messaging battle has been lost.
as AI makes computing easier (and harder), people remain the hardest problem in computer science.
remember when github copilot was amazing, then became less so, as it drastically reduced server calls to save costs?… seems to be happening with claude code, many more brittle python regex's rather than model calls. amazingly(!) doesn't ask me to choose between better/worse, when one is more money
with more than 50,000 abstracts submitted to ICLR last week, can’t decide if that’s evidence ML research is stronger than ever or evidence that it’s dead
in response to the flood of nonsense papers, too much of reviewing has become, "gotcha!", you used AI or you messed up a rule, desk reject. boom. science.
as confusing and chaotic as AI is right now, we'll be looking back at right now as the best days. the AI companies are competing for users, it's easy to access and mostly it's getting better. i can look up advice on products and it's mostly legit. when will the enshittification start?? :(
wouldn't it be neat to see where your AI computations happened, how many computers it involved, maybe even amount of power used … i imagine that information is harder than I might think to have access to real-time, but wouldn't it be cool?
i've never been an organizer, but because of AI, i now put things into folders, because AI is most useful if you curate your content for it.